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

At Wounded Knee, two federal agents were shot to death. sm

Posted By: sm on 2005-08-29
In Reply to: russell means - gt

One was killed while going for his gun after being shot at.  The gun was so high powered, it severed his hand. He was married and a father.  I don't think Wounded Knee is anything to be proud of. 




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

When you say Wounded Knee is nothing to be proud of....
You primarily mean the original Wounded Knee, right?
No, I was talking about the recent Wounded Knee. sm
It would be an insult to say that the original Wounded Knee was nothing to be proud of.  It was a ghastly tragedy, one of a long line, against the American Indian. History books don't do justice to the injustice and horror of the original Wounded Knee.  
Wounded Knee/Reign of Terror

 I think you are confusing The Siege at Wounded Knee beginning in February 1973 with the Reign of Terror as it was called by the indians the following three years. During those 3 years 64 tribal members were unsolved murders, 300 harassed and beaten and 562 arrests made of which only 15 were convicted. The seige ended after 71 days. In 1975 the FBI was following a red pickup truck to the Jumping Bull ranch where many AIM members as well as nonmembers were present..AIM having been asked there by the family for protection. What ensued ended in the death of 2 Federal Agents and 1 indian man. The red pickup truck was never seen nor heard of again. What happened is sketchy at best. Three indian men were tried in the deaths of the Feds. Two were acquitted and Leonard Peltier has been in prison for 27 years, although there is little evidence to support his incarceration...or I guess I should say, there was evidence at the time of the trial but at least 4 of the witnesses have recanted their testimonies. They state they testified out of fear. If nothing else, Peltier deserves a new trial and that has been proven and reproven, yet he does not get it.  During the 1973 Wounded Knee, 2 AIM members were killed and 12 others disappeared. There is quite a bit of information on this topic available for your perusal. Aho.


 


P.S. The reason indians (traditional) would rather be called indians than Native Americans is because the land we lived on was not America until the white man came. Indians called this place Turtle Island. The Native Americans were, in fact, the first Europeans to arrive and name this place America, ergo, they were the first or Native Americans. We are the indigenous peoples, the indians.


the death of Wall Street is the death of the USA...you really want that????? nm

CIA Agents Letter

CIA Agents Letter to US Senate and House



18 July 2005


AN OPEN STATEMENT TO THE LEADERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.


The Honorable Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives


The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives


The Honorable Dr. William Frist, Majority Leader of the Senate


The Honorable Harry Reid, Minority Leader of the Senate



We, the undersigned former U.S. intelligence officers are concerned with the tone and substance of the public debate over the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other members of the media, which exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.


The Republican National Committee has circulated talking points to supporters to use as part of a coordinated strategy to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. As part of this campaign a common theme is the idea that Ambassador Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame was not undercover and deserved no protection. The following are four recent examples of this "talking point":




Michael Medved stated on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005, "And let's be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job at Langley. She went back and forth every single day."


Victoria Toensing stated on a Fox News program with John Gibson on July 12, 2005 that, "Well, they weren't taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don't really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them."


Ed Rodgers, Washington Lobbyist and former Republican official, said on July 13, 2005 on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, "And also I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don't think there's any meaningful investigation about that."


House majority whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo), on Face the Nation, July 17, 2005, "It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to. You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."


These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who "work at a desk" in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.


While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation’s security.


We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation’s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.


We also believe it is important that Congress speak with one non-partisan voice on this issue. Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs. In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor. We stand in her stead and ask that Republicans and Democrats honor her service to her country and stop the campaign of disparagement and innuendo aimed at discrediting Mrs. Wilson and her husband.


Our friends and colleagues have difficult jobs gathering the intelligence, which helps, for example, to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans at home and abroad. They sometimes face great personal risk and must spend long hours away from family and friends. They serve because they love this country and are committed to protecting it from threats from abroad and to defending the principles of liberty and freedom. They do not expect public acknowledgement for their work, but they do expect and deserve their government’s protection of their covert status.


For the good of our country, we ask you to please stand up for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence community and help protect their ability to live their cover.


Sincerely yours,


 


_____________________________________


Larry C. Johnson, former Analyst, CIA



JOINED BY:


Mr. Brent Cavan, former Analyst, CIA


Mr. Vince Cannistraro, former Case Officer, CIA


Mr. Michael Grimaldi, former Analyst, CIA


Mr. Mel Goodman, former senior Analyst, CIA


Col. W. Patrick Lang (US Army retired), former Director, Defense Humint Services, DIA


Mr. David MacMichael, former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA


Mr. James Marcinkowski, former Case Officer, CIA


Mr. Ray McGovern, former senior Analyst and PDB Briefer, CIA


Mr. Jim Smith, former Case Officer, CIA


Mr. William C. Wagner, former Case Officer, CIA


Agents of Change


by: Susan G. Kerbel, Ph.D., t r u t h o u t | Perspective




Obama

Supporters of Barack Obama holding torches and signs in Szabadsag "Freedom" Square, Budapest, Hungary. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)




    Exploring the psychology of social change reveals warning signs and opportunities for progressives as Obama takes power.

    Now that progressives have attained their goal of electing Barack Obama president and established the presence of a political mandate for change and, putatively, progressive ideas, what can we expect will happen next? What do we now need to learn to maximize our momentum in the wake of this exceptional, momentous reaffirmation of the democratic tradition in America?

    Now that we have won the political argument, the next step is to work on creating the cultural and socioeconomic changes that must follow if we are to build a truly progressive society.

    Consider the upcoming changes for the progressive movement from the vantage point of the psychological dynamics that any human organism undergoes when faced with the changes in identity that accompany any life transition. There are forces that seek change, and those that fear and resist it.

    This is what I expect will happen next, and indeed, seems to have begun to happen already:

    Now that Obama has been sworn in, progressives will go through a momentary backlash of self-doubt. Is this really happening? Can we trust that this is real? Are we able to do this? Are we ready?

    This self-doubt typically can play out in a variety of ways. For example, the old guard Democrats of the DLC may try to take credit for Obama's sweeping victory by positioning themselves in the new administration in a way that seems to undercut all the energy and commitment of "new" and younger progressives who were swept into civic engagement by Obama's campaign. The media, in turn, tries to play this as business as usual among the Democrats and emphasizes disillusionment and disappointment among the previously hopeful new participants in the political process. The message is that the youthful energy, inclusiveness, and new ideas of the Obama campaign have turned out to be an illusion.

    The important thing to remember when this happens is that this is a momentary and expectable development. It will pass. We must not allow the mainstream media to make too much of it, or believe that storyline ourselves. Remember: Obama's victory was a ratification of change, and change - personal, cultural, or otherwise - does not happen in a straight line.

    The most important development I anticipate for progressives, now that Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th president, is that our roles as progressives will have to change. Up until this point, we have been the underdogs, not just for the past very long eight years, but also throughout the entire arc of the advent of modern conservatism, dating back to the election of Ronald Reagan. Although Bill Clinton held office for eight of those years, and represented a reprieve from staunch conservatism in a number of ways, the zeitgeist of the country was far from a progressive one. It has been a very long time that the progressive movement has been pushing Sisyphus' rock uphill. We have been the underdogs for so long that many of the newly engaged foot soldiers of the Obama era have no recollection whatsoever of this country being any other way.

    We've been the underdog for what has seemed like forever - and now, all of a sudden, we're not. We won. We were victorious. But what do we do with the victory? And what pitfalls lurk under the surface in the transition from victor to whatever comes next?

    From Underdog to Change Agent

    First, we are going to have to get used to being victorious, to wielding power. At first blush, that does not seem to present any difficulties, but that would be a naive position to take.

    The progressive movement is about to be called upon to undergo a change in identity. A positive change, to be sure, but a change nonetheless. All changes, even positive ones, create stress for the party that is changing. Witness the fact that positive events such as marriage and getting a promotion register high on ratings of major life stressors, alongside negative events such as divorce and loss of a loved one. Moving to a new place to live is high on the list as well - an event that can be construed as either positive or negative, depending on the point of view of the relocating person.

    The point here is that all change induces stress, regardless of whether we choose to view it as positive or negative, because we must manage shifting external demands just as we are learning about new capabilities in ourselves we may not have been aware of before, or practiced utilizing.

    Progressives are about to experience this firsthand. We are no longer the powerless underdogs fighting rear guard actions against the relentless rule of a regressive, repressive majority. Now we are in charge. And we are going to have to get used to it.

    The second aspect of this change from progressive underdog to majority player and holder of power revolves around how we will wear our new role. This is a more optional change. But I believe we have an unprecedented opportunity to rewrite the script of how victors behave in the American system, as part of the effort to bring not just political but cultural and socioeconomic change to our country.

    If we are to win the cultural argument, and not just the political one - in other words, if we are to build the just, sustainable society that progressives have dreamt of and talked about for so long - then we are going to have to treat our victory differently than we would have under more "normal" circumstances.

    It is patently obvious that Obama's victory was no ordinary victory; it was a sea change on numerous levels. It was the culmination of a lifetime of work for civil rights activists; an overwhelming statement of agreement with values of the progressive movement by a majority of voters; and a reaffirmation that our electoral system, and our democracy, despite voter fraud and the shredding of our Constitution by the Bush administration, can still function.

    On top of this, the magnitude of the problems that our nation and the world face at this moment in history is staggering: war, national and energy security, economic meltdown, and a raft of social ills that have festered for eight or more years without balm. That was no ordinary election, and this is no ordinary post-election. We have a mind-boggling array of issues to attend to. Creating the needed changes in our national infrastructure, commerce, and culture will require some heavy lifting indeed.

    Ask anyone who's ever built a pyramid - some genuine heavy lifting - and they will tell you what's needed is cooperation. We as progressives cannot fix the magnitude of problems in this country on our own, even if we are now putatively the majority.

    So, the invitation that appears before the progressive movement is to shift our identity not from underdog to victor, but from underdog to, eventually, agent of change. If we are to ultimately do the work that has been set before us, we must shift from being adversarial to cultivating cooperation. We have to learn to work with the people who even recently may have strenuously opposed us.

    Doing What Is Needed

    This will not go down easy for a lot of progressives. There are activists who have labored in the trenches for so long that relinquishing an oppositional stance in relation to conservatives may be functionally impossible, at least at first. And there are doubtless progressive political operatives and members of Congress who have their own battle scars that will not fade any time soon.

    Indeed, it is understandable - and I would encourage it enthusiastically - to enjoy our victory for a good long moment, in order to settle into the mantle of leadership we have worked so long to earn. But we cannot afford to bask in the moment for long.

    My point here is that prior elections have kept Democrats and Republicans in a perpetual pendulum swing where one lords their power over the other after an electoral victory, because the battle is so hard won, and there is the perception, often quite accurate, that our opponents would not be especially gracious to us if the roles were reversed. And indeed, we are not especially generous when it is our turn, because now we want the other guy to know what its like to be on the bottom of the pile for a change.

    The problem with this thinking is that, well, there's not much thinking in it. It's an emotional knee-jerk reaction - and one of the many reasons why citizens have been cynical about politics. There is a playground quality to making your opponent pay after you've won. In that sense, the Democrats (though they haven't won as often) and the Republicans (who have held the upper hand a lot) are very much alike.

    Given that this is no ordinary moment in time, and no ordinary victory at hand, there is an opportunity for progressives to find a way to be the better men and women, to take the high road and work to forge the partnerships we need with those who we know may not agree with us.

    President Obama, no doubt, embodies this kind of graciousness himself. He serves as a model of how to move forward in working with our former opponents - even if his efforts have initially, and ultimately quite foolishly, been repudiated by Congressional Republicans. As our president is so fond of saying, he cannot do it all alone. Individual citizens are going to need to participate in the challenging work ahead of us that is necessary to rebuild our country. The likening of these times to the Great Depression certainly carries with it the implication that, in fact, all citizens will need to be called upon to pass successfully through this transition. In effect, we will all need to be ambassadors for progressive values in our own lives in order to enact en masse the creation of the vital and humane society we have held dear in our minds all this time.

    Indeed, I would argue that, as progressives, it is our moral obligation to do better as victors than historically we, or our opponents, have. If we are to have the integrity of our beliefs, if we are to act in ways that are consistent with what we claim to profess as humanistic and creative thinkers who believe in the democratic experiment, we must strive to do this. Putting aside our differences and declining to vilify those who have vilified us is what we will be called upon to do in order to build the bridges and coalitions we are going to need to build.

    The challenge moving forward is to learn how to engage our opponents in the larger work we must undertake together to repair our nation and society. Defiance, gloating and animosity will not work. There are techniques that progressives can learn in order to do this, which is the subject of another essay entirely. But before we get to that, we must make the transition from enjoying the spoils of victory to transmuting ourselves into agents of positive change, into seeing ourselves as catalysts, or midwives if you will, of the new society and economy we must build.

    Ignoring Feelings at Our Peril

    How on earth are we going to do that?

    Well, first I'll tell you what we are not going to do - or at least what will very likely not work for the majority of progressives if we default into doing this. We are not going to float feel-good platitudes about how we are going to simply "let go" of our feelings of resentment towards neo-cons that have been developing over the past eight years. The conservative junta has trashed much that progressives hold near and dear, and have worked mightily to dismantle the fabric of our nation. They have institutionalized a nastiness and mean-spiritedness in their governing and their media that has shredded the ability of our nation to hold civil discourse on nearly any topic of substance. We can not simply be asked to forget this. When the wolf is standing at the door, you don't invite him in for tea.

    No, instead, I would recommend that we acknowledge openly and vociferously the damage done by the neocons to us - not as a media event to be parsed and misinterpreted by pundits - but as a sort of within-group purge, an opportunity for progressives to speak among ourselves about what we have been through in order to relinquish it and become ready to assume the responsibilities of leadership.

    It is not unlike the shift from Apartheid in South Africa - there was a need for the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to hold open hearings on the injustices of the fallen regime, in order for citizens to let go of the pain of that era and move on to something new (although in our model there is no power to grant amnesty from prosecution for perpetrators).

    The danger is, if we skip this step - if we move directly to pushing the progressive agenda forward without reflecting on how we feel about what toll it has taken to get here - we risk the dark impulses of revenge and unconscious anger tearing apart the coalitions we need to build. The emotional energy around the presidential election, and by extension, the cultural transition we are about to enjoin, is considerable. Do not underestimate the importance of emotion in the political equation. If we do not acknowledge our quite understandable desire to make the Republicans and neo-cons pay for the damage they have done, they will sense this unbidden energy and exploit it as our weakness. They will help us self-destruct on it. We must not let that happen.

    The advantage of intentionally addressing the lingering animosity that progressives quite understandably may feel towards the conservatives we are now tasked with working with to rebuild our country, is that making conscious the desire to express anger towards conservatives and seek revenge against them gives us the power to decide what to do with these feelings. These feelings will not ambush us if we take the time as a group to acknowledge them.

    Acknowledging in a collective setting that many progressives feel the same on this score will allow us to set these impulses aside. And in so doing, it will allow us to reclaim a strong, and even fierce, voice that we can use to work with the conservatives in a way that holds them accountable for their transgressions without seeking blame or retribution.

    Accountability and Cooperation

    Note that the endgame of working through our negative feelings towards the conservatives is not to roll over, Neville Chamberlain style, and forget everything that was done to us at the hands of the conservatives. Rather, it is to open a way to gather our strength and determination as we hold the conservatives accountable for the errors of their ways, past and present, as part and parcel of learning to work together in coalitions with them. If we are angry, subconsciously or not, we are not empowered; we are reactive, and letting fear of being overpowered again decide what we are to do. If we have a handle on our darker feelings, we can make conscious choices about them, can set them aside, and can confront wrongs in clear conscience, even as we reach out to our former opponents.

    Once we have moved through this process, we will be ready to assume the mantle of power that we have earned. We will be in a position to choose whether we will act as victors rubbing our former opponents noses in their loss, or as intentional catalysts for change, both building coalitions and requiring accountability and responsibility from ourselves as well as our opponents. Once lingering negative feelings have been aired, we will be ready to try on our new identity.

    Enjoining the progressive community in an intentional discussion of where we have been and what comes next as part of forging our next collective identity also addresses the fact that progressive forces are now the majority in the executive and legislative branches. Without a permanent stalemate, without an enemy to push against, progressives may be unnerved as to how to act. We no longer need to be locked in combat. This is not to say that we are suddenly free of opponents - or that we are free of the need to hold our leaders' feet to the fire and demand they act on their progressive promises - but there is no longer a need to be constantly in a state of battle. This will probably be unnerving to many a progressive. And yet this gives us an opportunity to change the terms of the game, to allow at least some of what we contract with our conservative opponents to be less oppositional and adversarial. There is not nearly as much to push against. We will have to figure out how to remain engaged with moving ahead the issues under these radically different circumstances. A forum such as the one I'm suggesting may help to engage activists who would otherwise not have an easy time finding a place in the next phase of progressivism.

    And so I suggest the creation of a forum for progressives to discuss the impending changes in our identity, our relationship to power, and all that has come before, in an effort to get ready for what comes next. A place to safely relinquish the battle scars, call them what they are, and begin to collectively create our next identity as makers of change. The time, shape, and scope of this is up for debate, although certainly sooner rather than later (say, within the first three to six months of Obama's presidency) would be advisable. But that it should take place is clear. The dynamics of change are in play, and we would do well to attend to them.

    There is a wonderful future to be built. Let's go.

    -------


Bush let those 2 border agents

moulder over christmas and thanksgiving in solitary just so he could make a big splash on his last day.  Or did he JUST make up his mind?  I am surprised all the windows in the WH don't have to be opened for a few days just to air out the stink before that fine family moves in.


 


Those two Border Patrol Agents...
...were rogues who fired 15 shots at the back of an unarmed man who had his arms up in surrender and then tried to cover it up. Of course, one of them fired 14 shots and missed them all, so that might be one reason he tried to cover it up. They tried to gather up all the spent shell casings and tried to recruit a third agent to go back and get any shells they missed. They never reported the shooting. They repeatedly changed their stories once they were found out. They lied about it in court, claiming that the victim had a gun. Their convictions were held up on appeal.

With unfounded speculation, rumors, misstatements of fact, and various unproven assertions cherry-picked from the case the defense presented at trial, Lou Dobbs and Jerome Corsi (of Swift Boat fame), turned these two losers into heroes of the right wing.

They deserved the sentence they received. Bush didn't pardon them--he revoked their sentences, but their conviction still stands.
We have never failed our wounded before.
Federal disaster relief has arrived within hours at every other national catastrophe as far back as 1912. All they had then was wagons and horses and a lot of strong backs - and they did far better than Bush and his cohorts with all their (our) money and modern machinery. There's nothing wrong with America or Americans - what's wrong sits squarely in the White House, a big rotten sore on the otherwise healthy fruit.
President Bush has pardoned the Border Patrol Agents!
Yes!
Halliburton to wounded employee: You'll get a medal - if you don't sue.
Halliburton to Wounded Employee: You'll Get a Medal -- If You Don't Sue

Halliburton will help its combat-zone employees get the honors and recognition they deserve -- if they promise not to sue the company. That's according to new documents released today by Senate Democrats.


Ray Stannard was a truck driver in Iraq for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. In 2003, he was part of a fuel convoy that was ambushed by insurgents. Seven Americans died in the attack and 26 were injured, including Stanner. He is suing the company.


His company knew the convoy's route was dangerous and unprotected, he says, but sent the convoy through anyway. What they did was murder, Stannard told CBS News recently. And I stick by that.


The circumstances of his injuries qualified Stanner for the U.S. Defense of Freedom medal, the civilian equivalent to a soldier's Purple Heart. In offering to forward Stanner's medical records to the Department of Defense so they could confirm and appove his award, KBR required him to sign a release form. (You can see the document here.)


The document, sent to Stannard in November 2004, appears to be boilerplate -- but for one curious paragraph that appears to indemnify KBR from any wrongdoing that may have led to Stanner's injuries:


. . . I agree that in consideration for the application for a Defense of Freedom Medal on my behalf that. . . I hereby release, aquit and discharge KBR, all KBR employees, the military, and any of their representatives. . . with respect to and from any and all claims and any and all causes of action, of any kind or character, whether now known or unknown, I may have against any of them which exist as of the date of this authorization. . . . This release also applies to any claims brought by any person or agency or class action under which I may have a right or benefit.

Stannard didn't sign the form. He received the medal. And he filed suit against the company the following May.


Republicans want amnesty for terrorists who killed or wounded US troops.

The following is a compilation of Senate Republicans defending the proposal to give amnesty to terrorists who have killed or wounded US troops. These statements were made on the Senate floor yesterday.


TED STEVENS - IF THAT'S AMNESTY, I'M FOR IT: I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it. And if those people who are, come forward... if they bore arms against our people, what's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven? - Sen. Ted Stevens



MCCONNELL SUGGESTED A RESOLUTION COMMENDING IRAQIS FOR GIVING TERRORISTS AMNESTY. ...might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they've taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty? - Sen. Mitch McConnell



ALEXANDER COMPARED IRAQI AMNESTY FOR TERRORISTS TO NELSON MANDELA'S PEACE EFFORTS. Is it not true that Nelson Mandela's courage and his ability to create a process of reconciliation and forgiveness was a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa...Did not Nelson Mandela, win a - the co-winner of - a noble Nobel Peace Prize just for this sort of gesture? - Sen. Lamar Alexander



CORNYN: IRAQI AMNESTY DEBATE IS A DISTRACTION. It makes no sense for the United States Senate to shake its finger at the new government of Iraq and to criticize them... it really is a distraction from the debate that I think the American people would want us to have. - Sen. John Cornyn



CHAMBLISS: AMNESTY IS OK FOR EX-INSURGENTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE NOW. Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis? - Sen. Saxby Chambliss




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/15/gop-senators-defend-propo_n_23083.html


Knee-Jerks
Quoting a biased article reveals only mimickry and calls for absolutely no knowledge (parrot). You'd be more credible if you had actually read the plan. I suggest that instead of inciting, you investigate.

Seems that there is an underlying agenda on your part. I'd bet a month's salary that you're a bitter, middle-aged Caucasian Republican, more than a little ticked off at the outcome of the election for non-altruistic reasons.
Now there's a knee-slapper if I ever heard one!
Hard to convey sarcasm in a written message!
That's a real knee-slapper. Thanks for the chuckles.
x
Let's add knee-jerk Bible quotations to that definition.
ns
Pathetic is knee-jerk support of a concept
just as long as you think it will serve some sort of political gain. If you can't defend you, your party of its candidate can't explain or defend their viewpoints, how then can they expect to win an election. I'm pathetic because I am calling you and the rest of the posters here to simply explain what it is they are endorsing? NOT.
We have good reason, kind of a knee jerk reaction. LOL.

We're constantly visited by the *compassionate conservative* trolls from the other board who come here only to be spew hatred, personally attack posters and to generally cause trouble, despite constant requests from the monitor that they not do that. 


I've always been in favor of stem cell research.  I believe in science progressing and helping people live longer.  I don't believe in forcing the personal religious beliefs of some down the throats of every American. 


In all honesty, though, here lately it's hard for me to get excited if I see America making progress in any area because it doesn't matter what bill Congress introduces, votes in favor of and presents to the President.  Bush will dismiss what he doesn't like and issue yet another of hundreds of his famous *signing statements.*  I don't know why we even bother to have a Congress any more.  They've been rendered impotent by King George.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14976584.htm


I apologize if you feel you were being treated negatively.  If you're someone who is legitimate and sincere about debate, then welcome to our board. 


But if you're only here to start trouble, like most of the elephants in donkeys' clothing invading this board lately, then I'd prefer that you just go away.  I won't feed any more hatred because I'm just tired of it all.  I've climbed down to their level too many times in the last few months, the stench way down there is just terrible, and I no longer wish to engage in their kind of communication.


What are your thoughts on the issues I've mentioned?  Please respond.  Thoughtful, intelligent debate, without the use of degrading personal insults, is very welcome here.


The typical knee-jerk (wrong) reaction. No one's been talking censorship.
nm
Yah ha! rim shot!

xx


 


Yep...there's the shot across the bow.
We'll see how Prez Obama responds to that one.
That's why should take our best shot rather than
x
They're trying to help but they being SHOT AT
for crying out loud...who shoots at their rescuers!! The people in New Orleans is what is making it so difficult, and the fact the roads are not passable in and out. Come on people. THINK!! They build a city in bowl below sea level. They were told for decades this was going to happen. This is a much more complex situation than just one person can be responsible for.
Let me take one shot at clarifying...

what I am talking about regarding illegal immigration, and what I view this country to be.  I do not now, nor have I ever said one word about wanting a "pure race."  I have said over and over, America is a country of immigrants.  A country of immigrants coming here who wanted change from their native countries.  Immigrants who became UNITED under one flag, one creed, one constitution, one set of laws.  The UNITED States of America.  The thread that bound us all together...Americans.  And the trend is away from that now.  Illegal immigrants want to come here and change America to Mexican America...or Muslim America...or, or, or.  To change what we are, the ideals we were founded on.  In my mind, if you make a conscious decision to leave your own country and come to this one seeking to change your citizenship, then you embrace this country, her laws, her ideals, etc.  That does not mean a person cannot be proud of individual heritage.  I am proud of my Irish, Native American, Swedish ancestry and can some of it back to the 15th century.  But I am not a Native Swedish Irish American.  I am an American with a mixed heritage, and I am an American first, and I don't frankly see anything wrong with that.  It is in that that we used to be UNITED and is what made us strong.  If we start to separate we might as well set up borders and call part of us Native America, part of us Africa America, part of us Mexico America....because we are not united anymore.  I even had the word "secession" thrown at me, which is ridiculous on the face of it.  I never said such a thing nor would I sanction such a thing, because I believe in the UNITED States of America.


At any rate, to set the record straight:  I do not ascribe to a "pure" race.  I object vehemently to illegal immigration.  I support legal immigration to the hilt.  However, I do believe that immigrants are making a choice when they leave their native land and come here...a choice to become an American, and if that is not their choice, then they need to stay in their country of origin and try to make it more America-like...it seems like that is what they REALLY want.


I love my country, I love her mixed heritage and I love my own mixed heritage.   I really, really don't see what the problem is with that. Black, white, red, yellow, polka-dotted or chartreuse....we are all Americans, and that should be the thread that binds us together.  Therein lies our strength. 


I will now officially stop beating this poor dead horse.  :)   Have a good day, my fellow Americans, every last one of you.  :)


And the first shot is fired.......
by those, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, spew things like "you are a nasty old hag arne't you?"  How Christian.
These are perfect!! Thanks for the shot . .
of reality . . . well, reality to most of us, anyway. 
Whackos like her are the ones that shot down

There is still a shot he might not leave. sm
The economy is very bad and there could be a catastrophic emergency (Directive 51), and we are stuck with him.
DON'T SHOT THE MESSENGER

It could be a joke, but I do trust Huffingtonpost.  It is also posted on other parts of the net.  For him to do so (pardon Bin Laden), probably means nothing to anyone except "Bush" since Bin Laden has not been captured and is not a U.S. citizen. You can search it yourself and form your own opinion:  "Bush Pardon's Osama Bin Laden" or you can copy and paste the link below.


I don't put anything past Bush and nothing he does surprises me.  I'm embarassed that I voted for him.  After stating that he gets a "briefing" every day, on Larry King when asked, if we ever came close to capturing Bin Laden, his reply was "I don't know......I really don't know."   First of all, you should know, and if you don't know, you don't say I don't know.  You can discuss the gallant attempts by our military to capture him, the sacrifice they gave of themselves to capture him, etc.  LAME DUCK -- BYE!!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/breaking-bush-pardons-osa_b_159272.html


 


 


 


The guy that shot him was a coward.
If he was doing God's work, he should have come forth and said so.
Let's give that a shot - here goes...
I would be an Irish-German-Welsh-Scottish-Native-American-American, at least as far back as I have traced my ancestry.

Think there's a box for that one?
You have a better shot at getting the truth paying sm
attention to alternative media. You will not get it in the box by mainstream, heavily censored, corporate owned media.
Forgotten the minute you took you last best shot.
nm
Sigh. Another anonymous shot across the bow. (nm)
nm
You got your wish. An MP was shot in the leg by looters. Women are being raped.
Police are turning in their badges because they say their homes are gone and it isn't worth it to them to get shot stopping looters.  There is anarchy in New Orleans.   Your with come true. 
Under the Bush regime, I don't think it's that much of a long shot.
I think and fear it is possible.  Wouldn't surprise me if the next civil war breaks out in the United States in the form of another Christian crusade.  It could happen.  We don't really live in a republic any more.  :-(
Give it your best shot. Spotlight on the pubs
nm
The sicko who shot the army soldier

and murdered him justifies himself by saying it was not a murder; it was a justified killing.......    Our liberal media has been so hush hush about the murder of this solider, maybe they think they same thing!!  They sure have talked about the baby murderer's murder til I'm sick to death of hearing it!!! 


Too bad Obama thought discussing the tiller murder was more important than mentioning a soldier's murder in THIS country due to a sicko islamic convert within our own country....  speaks volumes to me...


The sicko who shot the army soldier

and murdered him justifies himself by saying it was not a murder; it was a justified killing.......    Our liberal media has been so hush hush about the murder of this solider, maybe they think they same thing!!  They sure have talked about the baby murderer's murder til I'm sick to death of hearing it!!! 


Too bad Obama thought discussing the tiller murder was more important than mentioning a soldier's murder in THIS country due to a sicko islamic convert within our own country....  speaks volumes to me...


but that's the right way to do it, not federal
xx
Looks we all need Federal
Or start taking birth control if you are already not on them.

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/nancy_pelosi_birth_control_will_stimulate_the_economy/
King funeral--just another money shot for politicians
and opportunity for all politicians involved to bloviate ad nauseum. The whole thing went on forever. Reminds me of the old Appalachian mountain funerals where there were five or six preachers and each one had to see who could out preach the other.

Everybody had to get their money shot (especially Clinton and Carter) and to me it was sad to see a bunch of politicans and so-called religious leaders take advantage a good woman's funeral just to make their political hay.

Goes to show that you can't even die anymore without it being shrouded in politics.
Love the bust/head shot where he's worshiping the pie.
x
It is all about timing and the fact that there was a pet chimp shot by the police the other day.
Give it a rest.
cut what federal programs??

So the Federal govt is gonna cut back in entitlement programs to fund the rebuilding of NO?  Not gonna cease his tax cuts for the rich, just gonna cut back on programs for.....the disadvantaged, of course, the ones whose voices will not be heard..Whose fault was NO?  Bush and his administration.  I say Bush should donate some of his millions to the rebuilding of NO, let some of the unfortunate ones camp on his 1700 acres that he boasts about..He got us into this awful mess.  His speech the other night was a joke..Just another press moment, trying to pull on Americans heart strings but it aint working, LOL..**Long live equality**..Three more years?  Oh gee, can we survive?  What will be the next catastrophe under this fool?  9/11, Iraq and now NO..**America where are you**?


Huh? You think Fox created the Federal
Heaven help us, I certainly hope and pray they wanted to make the government SMALL. I cannot believe you just said what you did and do not even understand the point you made, which is government is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BIG. That is the problem!!!!!! I definitely want my government as small as possible, small enough we can drown it in the bathtub!!!!

Are you daft poster? Don't you see where BIG government has us now? They are DROWNING US!!!!!!! That's the entire point of small government, not regulating the h@ll out of me and my family.

I realize generations of people think that is what government is supposed to do....tell you how to think, what to read, how to raise our children (give them another pill if that's what the government says too),who to associate with, take away our civil rights one by one until we have nothing left of the country this was supposed to be.

Of course you want the government small. Did you think it was SUPPOSED to be big! That's what Obama wants.....MORE GOVERNMENT, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, more control of YOUR life. No thanks!!!!!!!! My life has been invaded enough by our out of control government.


Federal Reserve
The world central banks are printing money like crazy to try and free up the markets.  E-mail congress and tell them the Federal Reserve is not elected by the people and should not be allowed to devalue our currency by printing it out of thin air until it is worthless.  This is way past republicans and democrats now.  Call or flood them with e-mails and get Congress to protect us.
Oh please.......that's now the Federal Reserve
I said last night these were very old families, especially the Rothschild who have very deep deep filthy rich pockets and contribute greatly to the Federal Reserve and that this goes all the way back to England and British rule in the early 1900s. You act as if you found something no one else could find.

This is not news, maybe just to you or those who don't have a clue about the Federal REserve and I can guarantee you most liberal dems running their mouth on here didn't have a clue about the Fed Res....probably thought it was part of their government. And I hope this litle chart has clarified everything for you, which wouldn't surprise me, because you should already know the Rothschild family is part of this....it's who the others are that are kept quiet. They are listed as the Bank of England. You really need to understand where the Fed Res comes from, the fact that we have never really broken free from England. Someone asked last night about JP Morgan and why he was the beloved son or something, well, gee, get a clue. Look where his family comes from, their contributions to this country alone, and their very deep pockets. Those you will never know the names of put out little pawns in this country, i.e., JP Morgan and let them do their bidding. Unfortunately, they got greedy but don't think for a minute the Feds didn't know this was going on...they had to have known. The bigger question is what are they planning in order to continue to lower rates, allow these institutions to offer such fraudulent loans in the first place, taking advantage of anyone and everyone who walked through their doors.

If you knew half as much as you think you do, you would have realized a long time why Ron Paul has begged to abolish the Federal Reserve in this country, to disallow it to ever rule this country again, as it has done for soooo long. We are being ruled by an elite few, who pull the strings of every government they have their hands in.....is that what you want? That isn't a free country my friend...that is British rule.


I believe that a federal sales tax........sm
REPLACING the current income tax system would be a fairer, more equitable way of collecting  taxes from the US citizens.  The more you spend, the more you would pay in taxes.  The rich who buy nicer cars and top of the line merchandise would pay more, reflecting their ability to be able to do so, while the poorer would pay less based on their ability to afford less.  I also believe a system such as this, in place for a number of years, would tremendously cut the waste in America drastically by causing the American people, especially those in the middle class and lower class to consider their purchases more carefully.  However, I doubt it would have as much of an affect on the higher income class in terms of wastefulness.
Most of these are federal prisons and

military bases that do have prisons for military personnel plus the barracks. 


Don't get so upset. I think most of that link is just to fire up people's imagination. What do you think they would do with the prisoners in these federal prisons???? Turn them loose? Don't think so. It's scare tactics.


 


 


Look at your bills. There are federal
"excise" taxes on just about everything you mentioned.