I read your "document". Very legal-looking and all,
Posted By: except for one glaring thing: on 2008-10-14 In Reply to:you live in dumbsville..... - here's the document......
How exactly do you know that's legitimate? Did you see the official hard-copy? Likely not. I could have typed something like that myself, and so could you, or any other person who owns a PC. Even a photo of a 'hard copy' posted on the internet can't be automatically assumed to be valid. You do know, don't you, that most of what you read and hear on the internet is suspect in its validity, and nearly impossible to prove? The internet has more urban myths, fantasies and lies floating around on it than Carter's has little pills. So you have to be very careful about making decisions and judgements based on what you find here, and even more careful about what you say.
Anyway, it's a nice-looking document, but again, I could produce something exactly like that with ANYone's name on it, and post it on an internet in a matter of minutes.
Real 'truth' is something that's actually very, very difficult to find under the best of circumstances, and your chances of finding any during an election year?
Pretty much zip.
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 LEGAL
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DEMMIE!And yet it is still legal....
@@
abortion will always be, whether legal or not
What these anti pro choice people dont seem to realize is, termination of pregnancy will continue whether it is legal or not. The only difference is it will go underground, performed by people who are not licensed and the rich women, they will just make an appointment in a progressive not backward country like America and have their abortion. Essentially women will be baby makers for the government, their bodies controlled by the government. What it comes down to is..the neocons need to mind their own business.
Legal or not, there will always be abortions.
Abortions will always be performed whether they are legal or not. When I was in college, abortion was illegal. Several students became pregnant and had illegal abortions by back-alley butchers, and they almost died from hemorrhage and infection. Others tried to abort their pregnancies with wire hangers, knitting needles, and other drastic measures. I would much rather have legal abortions performed by licensed physicians than force young women to resort to barbaric procedures to terminate their pregnancies.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
it's not stealing - it's legal!
They are not married so they qualify for the earned income credit on their taxes even though they pay nothing in. It is based on how many children you have and your income.
It's been there forever! My sister gets upwards of $6000 a year every year and has for as long as I can remember; of course, when the children hit 17 or 18, that is gone, but for now it is like an extra $500 or $600 a month in income if you spread it out.
I don't know if the law changed, but the mother is also in Mexico. Don't know if she went voluntarily or if she was deported, too. If she went voluntarily, then I feel she really didn't put her children first.
Like I said in my earlier post, I think the children should have gone with them even though they are American citizens. Why let the eldest take care of the younger ones, I think ages 15 and 11.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
I agree. Women will have them - legal or not
Although I don't think I would ever consider abortion personally and am also sickened by people who have them over and over again (get your tubes tied darn it!!!), I believe women will have them regardless of if they are legal or not, so I think it is much safer if they remain legal.
I also think the woman should have the choice of what to do with something that is actually inside of her body. She is the one ultimately 100% responsible for the medical bills due to the pregnancy, the emotional toll and physical risks of the pregnancy, and the child's well being afterwards. The man can get off scott free if he wants and skip from job to job to avoid paying child support, so it should definitely be up to the woman.
I also find it odd that many pro-life Republicans are so adamant that each baby have a chance to be born, but yet if that baby is born to a lower-class mother many (not all) don't want a dime of their money to go to help that baby with healthcare costs or any other costs that could help the child after it's actually born. Where is the deep concern for the children that are actually living?
Though the thought of abortion is definitely disturbing to me, I do not believe at less than 3 months old a baby's nerves are developed enough to feel pain as they are aborted, but I know for a fact many children in the USA are being abused and neglected on a daily basis because they were unwanted, and my heart breaks for them. There are over 100,000 foster kids in the USA right now that need good homes and more resources, and I think our focus should be on helping these children first. My sister has 2 amazing foster kids, and I really wish the anti-abortion activists would focus on fostering or helping the kids that are here now instead of focusing so much on fetuses that are inside of other women's bodies, and therefore really none of their business in my personal opinion. (I know some do foster and volunteer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of them do!)
I don't understand your question, sorry....if I don't want him controlling my health care why would I want him deciding if an abortion should be legal? I don't want him controlling my health care, and the Supreme Court already decided (unconstitutionally I might add) that abortion is legal. THIS was about INFANTICIDE. Killing a living breathing infant outside and separate from the mother by denying it medical care. Abortion is horrific enough, but that is out and out negligent homicide, and he voted FOR it. That tells me all I need to know about Barack Obama and how he cares about people.
If Obama is not legal, he is not doing our country
nm
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The concentration camps were legal, too.
Your argument doesn't hold any water. Just because someone's allowed to murder one type of human being and not another does not make either right or just.
And, FYI, killing an adult with cancer is NOT illegal, so you need to check your facts.
If Joe Legal is married and has 2 children
and 2 parents, whom he probably supports, why else did you mention this, anyways, Joe Legal does NOT pay 30% taxes.
After I read this statement, I did NOT continue to read your rant.
Also, this inquiry was started before she was running for the VP slot - so it was not something they cooked up to get her after she got picked by McCain.
how about legal!!/common sense test...
x
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
He has no legal recourse to "recall" bonuses.
Unfortunately, because these are private companies, they have contracts with the CEOs and they are absolutely within their rights to honor those contracts. However, if Obama can find a loophole to keep them from getting paid, then we'll see what happens then.
This is why the government shoulder NEVER get involved in private businesses. Once they start handing on money, they think they own private businesses and dictate everything to them, so now we are caught in a catch 22 so to speak; government has no business in private businesses but yet they have given private businesses OUR money with NO stipulations beforehand and are now "surprised" the bonsues will continue?! Pleeeze!!!
Again, the screw up here is letting the screwed up American legal system handle legal cases that are best served by military tribunals.
McCain's legal adviser has already voted for Obama.
Yet another high-profile Republican has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama — and this time, it’s one of Sen. John McCain’s own advisers.
Charles Fried, a conservative legal scholar, Harvard professor and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, has asked to be removed from McCain’s list of advisers and thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee.
I don't expect anyone to quit taking their legal deductions and I don't see how his taking those deductions can be construed as his not having to pay more taxes. The amount you owe comes off the adjusted amount and that will still be the same after he itemizes - just the percentage paid against that amount will change.
GOP Pays Legal Bills in Vote-Thwart Case
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Republican Party says it still has a zero-tolerance policy for tampering with voters even as it pays the legal bills for a former Bush campaign official charged with conspiring to thwart Democrats from voting in New Hampshire.
James Tobin, the president's 2004 campaign chairman for New England, is charged in New Hampshire federal court with four felonies accusing him of conspiring with a state GOP official and a GOP consultant in Virginia to jam Democratic and labor union get-out-the-vote phone banks in November 2002.
The Republican National Committee already has spent more than $722,000 to provide Tobin, who has pleaded innocent, a team of lawyers from the high-powered Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly. The firm's other clients have included former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
Republican Party officials said they don't ordinarily discuss specifics of their legal work, but confirmed to The Associated Press they had agreed to underwrite Tobin's defense because he was a longtime supporter and that he assured them he had committed no crimes.
"Jim is a longtime friend who has served as both an employee and an independent contractor for the RNC," a spokeswoman for the RNC, Tracey Schmitt, said Wednesday. "This support is based on his assurance and our belief that Jim has not engaged in any wrongdoing."
A telephone firm was paid to make repeated hang-up phone calls to overwhelm the phone banks in New Hampshire and prevent them from getting Democratic voters to the polls on Election Day 2002, prosecutors allege. Republican John Sununu won a close race that day to be New Hampshire's newest senator.
At the time, Tobin was the RNC's New England regional director, before moving to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.
A top New Hampshire Party official and a GOP consultant already have pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors. Tobin's indictment accuses him of specifically calling the GOP consultant to get a telephone firm to help in the scheme.
"The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters ... of their federally secured right to vote," states the latest indictment issued by a federal grand jury on May 18.
The Republican Party has repeatedly and pointedly disavowed any tactics aimed at keeping citizens from voting since allegations of voter suppression surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000 that tipped the presidential race to Bush.
Earlier this week, RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director, reiterated a "zero-tolerance policy" for any GOP official caught trying to block legitimate votes.
"The position of the Republican National Committee is simple: We will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerate intimidation; we will not tolerate suppression. No employee, associate or any person representing the Republican Party who engages in these kinds of acts will remain in that position," Mehlman wrote Monday to a group that studied voter suppression tactics.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean on Thursday questioned Mehlman's commitment to the policy. "This is just another example of his say one thing, do another strategy. Ken Mehlman tells crowds his party is against voter fraud and intimidation, while in the backrooms he supports Republican officials who engage in these dirty tricks," Dean said.
Dennis Black and Dane Butswinkas, two Williams & Connolly lawyers for Tobin, did not return calls seeking comment. Brian Tucker, a New Hampshire lawyer on the team, declined comment.
Tobin's lawyers have attacked the prosecution, suggesting evidence was improperly introduced to the grand jury, that their client originally had been promised he wouldn't be indicted and that he was improperly charged under one of the statutes.
Tobin stepped down from his Bush-Cheney post a couple of weeks before the November 2004 election after Democrats suggested he was involved in the phone bank scheme. He was charged a month after the election.
Paul Twomey, a volunteer lawyer for New Hampshire Democrats who are pursuing a separate lawsuit involving the phone scheme, said he was surprised the RNC was willing to pay Tobin's legal bills and that it suggested more people may be involved.
The new development "really raises the questions of who are they protecting, how high does this go and who was in on this," Twomey said.
Federal prosecutors have secured testimony from the two convicted conspirators in the scheme directly implicating Tobin.
Charles McGee, the New Hampshire GOP official who pleaded guilty, told prosecutors he informed Tobin of the plan and asked for Tobin's help in finding a vendor who could make the calls that would flood the phone banks.
Allen Raymond, a former colleague of Tobin who operated a Virginia-based telephone services firm, told prosecutors Tobin called him in October 2002, explained the telephone plan and asked Raymond's company to help McGee implement it.
Raymond's lawyer told the court that Tobin made the request for help in his official capacity as the top RNC official for New England and his client believed the RNC had sanctioned the activity.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Ethics and Legal Ethics
You obviously understand nothing about "legal ethics", confusing it with "ethics". Obviously, arguing something to be true that you know to be false is extremely dishonest and unethical. But legal ethics demands it. Similarly, legal ethics demands that you do everything in your power if it will help your client -- or at least this holds for legal ethics in some cultures, and the whole point of legal ethics is that no one should be criticized for doing something in its name. He was representing his clients which does not prove his *gasp* moral compass. Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
marks the location of current message within thread
![](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ya/yahoo_messenger/2005805_57541_1_300x250_lrec_freewwcalls_love.gif")
