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

My point is, he is telling a different story now...

Posted By: Observer on 2007-04-30
In Reply to: What I found so far - Tornay

that he is writing a book than he did under oath in front of Congress. There has to be a reason for that. He still says he was wrong in the intelligence, he admits that he said *slam dunk* in reference to WMD, and he said in the congressional hearings that he believed there was WMD. Now he says different. Now he is trying to say that, in so many words, they wanted to go to war so badly that they believed his bad intelligence. That is NUTS, I am sorry, and I don't need a news outlet of any bent to tell me that. I watched him testify before COngress on TV. I know what he said. He is not the only one who believed it...a lot of intelligence agencies all over the world believed it. He just does not want his legacy to be that he gave the wrong intelligence that started the war. Well..too late. He was the head of the CIA and the buck stops there. He has already been caught in two lies. Perle was not even in the country at the time Tenet says he talked to him. Tenet lied. They have the documentation that Perle was in another country for Pete's sake. At this point I don't believe a word the man says. As to Clark...do some research on him and you will see that he was saying the same things as Tenet to the Clinton administration. Guess he believed it when he was saying it, but not when Tenet was saying it. The issue here, however, is not Clark and Powell. It is Tenet. He was the head of the CIA. Either he is lying now in the book or he lied under oath in front of Congress. Either way, he is a liar, in my opinion.


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

Isn't that what you are doing? Telling me...
what to think and what to do? You can state you want free license to kill babies and I can't say I am against that? Get over YOURself.
We are telling you (sm)
The Bible tells us in several books, particularly Revelations. For someone who does not believe, read it as a history book. The fact that everything it says is coming to pass is undeniable. I don't necessarily think Obama is the anti-Christ. I do think everything else is coming to pass though, and we need to be looking for who the anti-Christ is. I have had my doubts in the past about my religion as well, but it is undeniable that the things the Bible predicts will happen are truly happening now.
So, you are telling us that you never
support Bush as our President and yet you expect everyone now to be bubbling over with excitement and accept Obama just because you do and pour our support behind him from day one. It is people like you who are so blind-sided and selfish and think only about yourself. You have been mully-grubbing Bush for 8 long years, so you never once gave him a chance. Obama has not even taken office yet and you are already deliriously happy, how do you know he is going to give you reason to beam with pride? You, along with a whole host of others, are such a foolish child.
You are really telling 1 now, for example
I was on the gab board yesterday and you came over there and started throwing your opinions around at something I said. You should tell the truth (but I guess most on her know about you anyway)- maybe it is just not like you to tell the truth. You gang up on anyone first. Why the capitalization- afraid you cant be heard good enough? Why don’t you just slime away.
Nobody is telling you anything
"You don't know how to be happy without a piece of paper?" Well if that is the case then you and your husband should not be allowed to be married either. Can't you two be happy without a piece of paper. What kind of ludicrous thing to say.

I am a human being. I should have the same rights you do to be able to marry whom I want to. You sit and tell me I should be happy with being discriminated against. Is that what you said about the blacks who had to ride in the back of the bus and not be allowed to sit up with the white folks (before Rosa Parks) - "you should just be happy to be able to ride the bus". Or how about not being able to drink out of the same water fountain as the white folks - "you should just be happy your getting any water at all".

And I'm sick and tired of hearing how we should just be happy to be together and not be afforded the same things that other human beings are afforded. When I can't make decisions about my other halves health care or other issues then yeah, that bothers me. When her family hates us because we are gay and takes everything we have lived for away from us, yeah, then that bothers me.

And you you know...when Judy and Barbara get married in the sight of God, their minister, and witnesses yes, that is "lawful" and their marriage license will say so, and you can say what you want - it means nothing.

But don't sit there and say I can get married but you can't. You can keep your moral values all you want, just stop spreading that type of bigotry. We're are not pushing anything down your throat. We want to get married and live our lives without anyone interfering with us.

You talk about twisting and manipulating. God loves everyone and there is nothing to prove that God disapproves of gay or lesbian marriage. In fact if Judy is dying and nobody will take care of her but Barbara I think God will love her probably a bit more than those who are hateful and bigotted towards them and would let Judy sit and rot in a hospital bed. So don't sit there and twist God's intent into something you want to believe. After we're all gone and moved on in lives I'm sure we will know whether or not God was displeased with us. And for those who are trying their hardest to keep the others unhappy. I'm sure "He'll" have some pretty strong words for them.

God made us human. We are all not perfect by any means. You need to get a clue! God loves all of us whether or not you want to believe that. Yeah, get a clue!

BTW - in case you haven't noticed, you are not god and by your posts I'm sure not going to believe anything you have to say as though you know what Gods intents are because you don't.
OMG! Are you telling me

that N. Korea wouldn't do horrible things to prisoners unless we start it first?  Is that what you are saying?  Seriously....I'd much rather be a prisoner in Gitmo getting waterboarded than be a prisoner in N. Korea.  And honestly.....who the he!! would know what we do to our prisoners unless our brainless wonder of a president didn't decide to broadcast it to the world for his witch hunts.  Sheesh.  This is what happens when people want to know every little detail during a war.  The stuff gets leaked out, our country is torn between the people who agree and the people who don't, and then other countries not only see us fighting amongst ourselves but they also know exactly what we are doing.


No one is telling
you that you can't have orgies and commit sodomy in your own home till the cows come home. What you do in your own home is your business, not the government's. What rights have been taken from the homosexual community? None that I can see. If you're talking marriage--a man has the right to marry a woman and a woman has the right to marry a man, regardless of your sexual dysfunctions.
and telling everyone...no demanding
that everyone feel the way they do.  Yes...ugly and evil.  UNPATRIOTIC AND ANTI-AMERICAN.
Never, not in any post, did I say God was telling me to do anything...
nice smokescreen, but a lie. Apparently some people do need training on the stages of pregnancy when they claim that all is aborted is a "blob" of tissue. That is a way to justify it in minds, yes...but it is not the truth. You would think people would at least want to know what they are supporting or choosing. But it is much more difficult when you assign form, a beating heart, things that signify a living human being.

If posts on abortion tire you, for the love of Pete don't read them! How hard is that?? Just pass right on over it. Post the issues that are important to you...like your job, the econonmy, the war, your social security. By the way, while you are researching social security, check what administration had control the first time it was raided to fund other social programs.

Again...do not attribute things to me that I did not say. Abortion is a religious issue to some, a moral issue to all. Do you think you have to be "religious," a Christian, or "know God" in order to be pro life? I beg to differ. You obviously are not a religious person, but that does not mean you are not a moral person, does it? Of course not. I believe abortion to be morally wrong, just like I believe capital punishment to be morally wrong. I believe stealing is morally wrong. I believe cheating on your spouse is morally wrong. I believe pedophilia is morally wrong. And you don't have to be "religious" to believe ANY of those things are morally wrong.

And if that chaps you, so be it. I don't have to apologize to you for standing against what I believe to be morally wrong.

I am tired of being attacked over and over as well, but I guess we will both just have to put up with it, won't we?
Yessss, just keep telling yourself that... sm
BTW, the GOP already filed a lawsuit in Ohio over this early voting and they lost. Stings doesn't it?
Telling someone to "buzz off"
is sort of like someone swearing.........it shows a decidedly limited vocabulary.
no telling where this will lead.
x
Rush telling it like it is...(sm)

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."


"The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit. "


"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act. ... This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting." --on an ad by Michael J. Fox endorsing Claire McCaskill for Senate for supporting embryonic stem cell research


"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation...I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?" --on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal


"And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs,
using drugs, importing drugs.  And the laws are good
because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if
people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought
to be accused and they ought to be convicted and
they ought to be sent up."


"I am addicted to prescription pain medication."


"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares."


"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the
homeless olympics...the 10-metre shopping cart relay,
the dumpster dig, and the hop, skip, and trip."


"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them."


Awesome leader you have there!


Nobody's telling her she doesn't have a right to speak.sm
She just needs to realize that everyone does not feel the way she does and YES, I have family members who are in Iraq right now who do not support this war, so the OP was not exactly right.
Strange, they keep telling us in Oregon...

That it will all come down to us.


I certainly hope that's true because we hate Hillary AND McCain.


 


With all due respect....you are telling me to back off? lol.
Whether I ever win or not does not matter...I will not stop the battle and I will not cease calling it what it is...horrific torture/murder of the unborn. I feel the unborn have the right to life, just like you have a right to life. I advocate for both of you. You want to fight for the right to murder the unborn and give others the right to murder their unborn in the name of YOUR uterus, YOUR choice, that is your prerogative. Just like fighting against it is mine. Last time I looked, that is every American's right. If Darryl Hannah can climb a tree to save it, I think I should be allowed to speak on behalf of the unborn. Lotsa times she doesn't save the tree, bhut she is still gonna climb'em. Sheesh.
The job: Busybody. The life: Telling everyone
nm
So are you telling us that OBAMA is a freak

being a Christian and all???


You don't believe in freedom of religion.  You are against Christianity.  Oh, except for O, he can be...because he is your personal savior?


Then why aren't you telling that to the poster
@
Wow, telling statement at the end of that post sm
"But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.”

Oh, and you are a real "class act" telling someone
to "buzz off."
You're not telling the truth.

One more time, THIS IS FROM OBAMA'S WEBSITE.  Point out where it says "required" or "mandatory" or any other such similar word.  The word "REQUIRED" came from the propaganda site -- it was invented -- and linked to Obama's site.


BELOW IS WHAT CAME FROM OBAMA'S SITE:


America Serves



 


"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."


 


The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.


http://change.gov/americaserves/


 


I was just telling my opinion in my 1st post.
Isn't this what this forum is about, posting one's opinion? What's your problem, getting all aggressive. This is the last comment I am reading or giving regarding this thread. So, do not even bother posting.
Once again you wasted a whole paragraph telling me how stupid I am SM
without a SINGLE FACT!   I give up with you. You are just too much (or too little). Whateva!
All the while telling us how hateful WE are. Totally clueless. nm

Telling someone to leave the country is worse than
.
Ron Paul was the only one telling you the truth about the economy. sm
He was mocked, ignored, and called a kook. I guess we will see who was wearing tin foil when this whole system crumbles.

Wall Street Rescue Worst Legislation Ever.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.smith08oct08,0,1221284.column
I'm voting for Obama. That's what I'm telling the pollsters.
x
I am telling you the action is on the Faith Forum
The election is over and Christmas is probably not coming. They are all getting ready for the end and it is very interesting.  I myself hoard spam just in case, and water, and cat liter, but not much else.  Good Luck!
I e-mailed my senators telling them the same thing! nm
nm
Ahmadinejad is doiing what Khatami is telling him to do..
I think that Ahmadinejad feels miserable now with so many protests.
Even the 1st election of Anmadinejad is said to have been a fraud.
Your continued refusal to answer the question is very telling.

Why would I ask a Jewish person if he or she were allowed to go to heaven according to someone's Christian beliefs?  Wouldn't that be silly?  And you're right.  It has nothing to do with whether Jews go to heaven.  But it has everything to do with whether you go to heaven or not, right?  Is your undying, unquestioning loyalty to Israel because you love Jews who will never be good enough to go to heaven according to your religion, or is because of the real estate the Jews inhabit in Israel?


You yourself wrote:  Then there is no Biblical alternative to supporting Israel and the Jewish people.


One more time:  DO JEWS GO TO HEAVEN?


If you again refuse to answer that, then my next question is where in the Bible does it say that said hypocrisy and disingenuousness are next to Godliness?


You also wrote:  If you are truly, then, a nonbeliever, it explains much of what I am seeing here.


And:  Are you all nonbelievers here?


How can you square that with your claim that you haven't judged anyone? 


How about : Stop telling the President of the United States WHAT functions
to attend and which not?
I think O and his cabinet are doing a better job in this than you.
I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class?
x
You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything.  It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap.  Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.

Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming my world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction. They are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say?
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.

Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming a world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not exactly have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction they employ in order to "secure" themselves.

The Palestinians are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say? This might just account for the lop-sided fatalities/injuries ratios between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In closing, it is worth noting that even with the advantage of all those terrorist toys and tools our tax dollars have bestowed upon them, security and peace of mind just seem to be further and further beyond their reach. Wonder why that is?
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT

RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.

As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.

Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.

With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.

Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.

RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:

Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.


Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record

What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?

Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.

In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.

The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.

Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.

In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.

The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.

Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]


It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.

I know. I was there.

When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.



JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President

JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.

His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.

His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.

The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.

For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.

After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.

Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.

As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.

When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.

The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.

The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.

The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act

When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.

Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.

Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Man From Illinois

In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.

He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.

Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.

Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.

Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.

Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.

Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.

The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.

As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.

In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.

This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.

On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:

There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.


This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.

SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:

create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):

design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.

"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."

That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.

(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-

`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.

`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.

It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.

Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]

Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.

In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]


I think the story is entirely possible, but unlikely.

I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.   


Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically.  She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor.  She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly.  That is not that unusual to me. 


She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy.  Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry.  Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term.  I understand that.  I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak.  Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby.  That is typical.


As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time.  I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant.  I was shocked at how tiny she was.  She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born.  DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge. 


I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well.  Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection.  It is very common.  If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?


All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby.  I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden.  No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant.  It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life.  That is part of what is wrong with our society today. 


thanks for your story

We must be nearly the same age because I know several women who were pressured into giving their children away and they are still haunted by that decision to this day. You are correct about the damage Palin is doing to her daughter. 


 


What the..? What was there ONE story about someone
have been SP's doing ?? You make it sound like she handed down firings to several thousand. LOL But hey, if she's that powerful and good at putting her plans into action, then maybe I will vote for McCain/Palin.
Let me tell you a story

Back in the early 70s, I was a single mom, going through a divorce, and no job. My son was only 1-1/2 years old. I needed help and had no one. I went to Welfare to see if they could help me. I got some money for an apartment and food stamps.


After 5 months, I found a job, told welfare I was going off it because I didn't need the help anymore. Well, they absolutely begged me to stay on it for at least another year. Needless to say, it was harder to get OFF it than to get on it. I just couldn't get it through their heads that I didn't want their handouts. I had a standing invitation to come back anytime.


Well, fast forward 8 years. My new husband's job went down the tubes and we went through all our savings, living paycheck to paycheck on mine. Went back to welfare to see if we could at least get food stamps for our 2 kids now. Nope! I earned $11 too much. They told us to sell the cars and the house we were buying and then maybe, just maybe, we would qualify for everything. No way!


Needless to say, we had a friend who owned a bar and served sandwiches and soup. He let my husband work for him doing odd jobs around his property and paid him in leftover soup and sandwiches. Hubby was also able to pick up a few other odd jobs and that's how we survived for 2 years.  We had a woodburner and cut and split our own wood, had seeds given to us and grew our own garden in the summer. We survived, but it wasn't easy. The only thing nice about it was my children learned about survival and my husband and I never gained any weight.The kids ate first, then hubby because his odd jobs were tougher than mine, and I ate last.


To this day, I can't look at a plate of spaghetti, soup, or chili. LOL


I actually got the story from CNN ....
Just sayin ...
And in a related story...

...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites.  Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....



U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court



By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET



The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.


Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.


It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.


The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.


Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.


The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.


The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.


Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.


The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.


Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.


Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.


Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.


The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.


Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.


The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.


I only posted one story. sm
And the subject, to me, is Ward Churchill has his deception, not AIM.  I would think as an OP, you would be more in tune to what the OP publications are saying about him. 
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this.   Thank you!
I only found one story on this. sm

From an obscure site called Rogers Cadenhead.  The remainder of the stories, from the LA Times, etc., did not include anything about U.S. Troops protecting the Hezbollah sympathizers.