Now wouldn't that bring accountability to the government?sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-09-25
In Reply to: tax dollars go to many things we dont want - gt
If people could choose which programs they want to fund. I think we should all be given a form with our tax form and we get to choose where we which programs to fund. That way if no one supported a program it wouldn't happen.
The government should really do this.
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
We don't bring it up to dismiss Bush, we bring it up...
to show that your criticism holds no water. It's not a political thing, it's a human thing. People have shortcomings. Now, if you want to have a statute of limitations on this thing, then I guess Bush is off the table as it's been about 20 years since his last drink, believe it or not (I know that's your next reply, that he still drinks, which you have no proof of so don't even try it).
The difference is accountability. There is no he said she said...
in this. The Republicans tried to get them to act before it happened and they refused. That is the bottom line.
Bush DID press it. But who has the majority in congress? You know, Congress, who has to pass any bill? That would be democrats. Look it up...John McCain tried in 2005, this is what he said:
join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
He named the problem, said what would happen, Democrats killed the bill...and here we are. Bush admin tried 17 times:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
It was the dems who did not listen to the Bush admin. None of them deserve to retain their seats. NONE of them.
It's called accountability...(sm)
That's something we never saw out of the last administration. Instead of trying to bully Europe, he listens, owns up to the mistakes of the US, and comes out with some pretty impressive results.
Examples: When was the last time you heard the French president say that he TRUSTS our president? Yep...that's what he said. A very important result is the fact that France is now willing to help with Afghanistan as well as willing to take select prisoners from Gitmo. 
Russia is now more willing to work with us on reducing nukes (You do know that those treaties were about to expire in the fall?). 
We have a consensus when it comes to dealing with North Korea (I think Hillary gets a big kudos for that one -- working with the 6 party talks). 
20 countries have now come to an agreement about how to work on the world economic crisis (including more effective regulation). 
These are only a few things that he has accomplished on this trip. All I can say is  Obama!!!!!
Speaking of truth and accountability....
or lack of it........good grief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html
War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; A01
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as outrages upon [the] personal dignity of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.
People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope, said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
The plan has provoked concern at the International Committee of the Red Cross, the entity responsible for safeguarding the Geneva Conventions. A U.S official confirmed that the group's lawyers visited the Pentagon and the State Department last week to discuss the issue but left without any expectation that their objections would be heeded.
The administration has not officially released the draft amendments. Although they are part of broader legislation on military courts still being discussed within the government, their substance has already been embraced by key officials and will not change, two government sources said.
No criminal prosecutions have been brought under the War Crimes Act, which Congress passed in 1996 and expanded in 1997. But 10 experts on the laws of war, who reviewed a draft of the amendments at the request of The Washington Post, said the changes could affect how those involved in detainee matters act and how other nations view Washington's respect for its treaty obligations.
This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.
The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1949.
U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.
Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars violence to life and person, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits outrages upon personal dignity such as humiliating and degrading treatment. And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S. military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3; it also created a system of military courts not specifically authorized by Congress, which denied defendants many routine due process rights.
The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.
U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard.
They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as constituting outrages -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable.
But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as outrages by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in inappropriate conditions of confinement, forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with physical, mental, or sexual violence -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.
It's plain that this proposal would abrogate portions of Common Article 3, said Derek P. Jinks, a University of Texas assistant professor of law and author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions. The entire family of techniques that military interrogators used to deliberately degrade and humiliate, and thus coerce, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib is not addressed in any way, shape or form in the new language authorizing prosecutions, he said.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Wednesday, however, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales complained repeatedly about the ambiguity and broad reach of the phrase outrages upon personal dignity. He said that, if left undefined, this provision will create an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack.
Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism at the hearing. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the military's top uniformed lawyers had told him they are training to comply with Common Article 3 and that complying would not impede operations.
If the underlying treaty provision is too vague, asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), then how could the Defense Department instruct its personnel in a July 7 memorandum to certify their compliance with it? Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who had signed the memo, responded at the hearing that he was concerned that degrading and humiliating are relative terms.
I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion, England said. And since it does have an international interpretation, which is generally, frankly, different than our own, it becomes very, very relevant to define the meaning in new legislation.
This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can elevate the War Crimes Act from an aspiration to an instrument by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing the ideals of the laws of war.
Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office, said it's not a question of being stingy but coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions. Former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and agents should not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the United States.
But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects. Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including dereliction of duty, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Take responsibility. Demand accountability.
Why do you cut Republicans to ribbons the largest financial disaster we have faced in decades can be laid at the feet of Democrats in Congress and all of a sudden you guys are saying stop blaming. You want to stop blaming Bush for the war?
yeah demand accountability -- keep
I love watching the stocks plummet, since my money isn't there.
Lest we forget accountability, how-dare you ask?
x
Wanting truth and accountability = hatred?sm
Dissent, not loyalty to the almighty State is patriotic.
If we give up all this money now and do NOT demand full disclosure/accountability to these foul thie
despite all the duplicity in the banking crisis, are STILL in corporate positions, then we have just thrown good money after bad and our whole system will go down faster. These guys do not even know what accountability means, and someone has to TEACH THEM, if not, be replaced, no more hand-outs, and face stiff fines for misappropriation of tax payer's money/government funds. We need to act fast, but not BLINDLY AND RASHLY!!
To bring in an oil well........ sm
takes about 10 to 14 days, depending on the area being drilled. This is for a land rig, not an off-shore rig. I live in a very oil and gas rich area of the country and I see them going up and coming down in a matter of days.
You know better than to bring
the Big JC into conversations on this board. Liberal nut jobs will start screaming about how church and government should be separate and how dare we force our religion on them. Next we will go into staying out of women's uteruses and allow the murder of unborn children but OMG.....don't even think about shooting wolves in Alaska as a predator control program because that is just horrible!!!
Ill go there this weekend and bring
you back some posts. I just went there once and could not stomach it. I havent checked out the Dem underground board yet.
sally bring your
post regarding Mccain's lack of support for troops up the top. It is highly relevant and I think it is buried in the muck and name-calling below.
Bring on the Miracle Gro. lol. nm
nm
Don't bring a bat to a gunfight.
/
Aaah, you want to bring it up here....okay
You seemed to have lived a very privileged life but
my family wasn't privileged. We did for ourselves and never felt we were better than others as your family did. We didn't use others to do our work for us. My father, mother, grandfather and grandmother worked side by side with blacks, doing the same jobs they did in factories, in the fields, you name it. I was never raised to believe I was better than others as you were. You obviusly didn't despise your family's racism too much. You still used your nanny, maids, whatever you want to call them and I'm sure you didn't wait on yourself hand and foot. So please don't sit there and sound all sanctimonious about your life. I actually lived life growing up and knew what it was to not be raised to think I was better than everyone else. I never looked at black people as someone who should "do our work" for us as you did. Perhaps you would know best about prejudice, bigotry and racism, since you were so established in a family that did. What I do know is the black people that lived close to us, and there were many, worked side by side with my family members, all being paid the same and all sweating through the summer sun working until dark to plant crops and harvest them together. My family picked cotton out in the blazing summer heat side by side with blacks as well. Did yours? Of course not.
So, until YOU'VE actually lived and worked for REAL with those you want to keep down and feel so sorry for, you need to learn to keep your mouth shut.
Nobody needs your kind trying to sound so self righteous when all you're really trying to do is ease your mind and your guilt.
Don't make that my issue.
You sound like a self-righteous hypocrit.
For Obama also to bring in that Rev?
"Black will not be asked to sit in back.... brown will be asked to stick around.... and WHITE will embrace what is right". --I am already hearing from friends who are so disappointed in that. Why do that? That does not unite anyone....only ticks off white people who have never been racists, but may be assumed to be simply for being white. Obama should have NEVER allowed this kind of statement. I do not treat any color differently than myself. I have a Chinese friend, a black friend, a Mexican friend. When we have all come so far, to dig up the past in this way is not good. I have even experienced reverse racism when trying to get a job, yet I just deal with it. If Obama is a uniter, he needs to stop this reminder of race and act as if we are all the same color.
I bring the popcorn!!
Oh, the mental picture I get from that one!!
if in doubt..bring up an old GT post
MT, I have never posted on the conservative board..because the responses would boil my blood. I dont know what post you are talking about..However, reading these posts this morning, one of your conservative *friends* posted about hoarding to American Woman, how she hoards information and then blasts away with old information from old posts..I have to tell ya, I laughed at that post cause, OMG, you guys, from the conservative board, have done nothing but bring up old posts that either I have posted or have been attributed to me, over and over and over and over and over and over..**If it doubt with nothing to say, bring up an old GT post**,
I figured that'd bring out the first-graders:)
Nice to know I'm not yet over-estimating the self-flagellating opposition.
I cannot bring myself to think they made it happen, but...sm
using the who stood to benefit/gain rule in solving a crime, there is room for suspicion. War is very profitable - world bankers and Halliburton? If they were incompetent, why were some promoted, and why aren't they standing trial for that? There are just too many unanswered questions, so I think in that sense they do need to reopen the investigation and do it properly. No one and I mean NO ONE will be getting away with killing 3000 Americans.
why did you even bring this up - looks like you are trying to start a fight
Everytime a subject is brought out you seem to like to interject a bash to Sam. I've been reading the posts and nowhere in response to my post here did I see sam post a "message with the express intent of wreaking havoc and instigating argument". I'm reading the responses to my post about issues and I'm not seeing one from sam called "let the games begin", so I have no idea what you are talking about. If your talking about another post awhile back, then start a new thread, but for Pete's sake don't drag it into mine. Forget sam - it looks like you are the one who is trying to start arguments. Leave your personal hatred out of this and be an adult for once. Posts like this I would expect from my 12 year old, but we are adults here. What's frustrating is to finally start reading about a lot of issues that both sides would like to know about and info they are sharing with us and then all of a sudden - bam, here comes your post bashing sam. I'm sitting here now looking at all the responses to my post and I'm not seeing the one you are talking about. Lets stick to issues and facts. It also sounds like some other posters want that too.
You bring up such a good point...
my partner drives a school bus in 2 areas, a very impoverished area, and then in the 'upper class' area, and he never gets over all the kindness and gifts he gets from the poorest of people during holidays, while the more affluent areas not even give nothing, they do not even treat him as a person.
I have noticed that during post office drives, you always see the most donated goods hanging on the mailboxes in poor neighborhoods, and very rarely anything from the huge gigantic housing developments. not to say they do not give but it really says SO MUCH.
we are musicians here where I live also and even the money-making machine bars and restaurants, they want to get everything free, they are making musicians around here go broke and do not care at all. they hold open mics and get everyone to play for free, while over-charging for every other little service, and give the musicians nothing, not even a free pop or coffee (or drink if you drink).
by the way, these establishments all boast they are christians/family establishments.
Nope, but that's where the movement to bring it
It USED to be a private decision. And even if you wackos manage to get Roe v Wade overturned, it will STILL be a private decision & procedure, and women and teenagers will still continue to obtain abortions, regardless of how much it is legislated against. The only difference will be in the safety of the procedure.
Clean hospital OR, or dimly-lit back-alley? I've had friends nearly die from the former. I choose the latter.
If you insist, we could always bring Bristol
unlike McC's supporters, I actually listen to my candidate when he says off limits. You are too covered with mud to realize he was defending your idiotic VP candidate and trying to shield her and her family from the glare of some VERY unfavorable media. The only chickens around this roost coming back are the ones that W set loose in the coop. I'll pass on following up the skeletons in McC's closet out of respect for my candidate's feelings. REAL American family values tell us not to go there.
I did not bring up Obama. The fact is
we don't need that promise from him as we are already doing it, and have been for years! Perhaps our older retired women will catch onto the new fertility efforts and start getting their pay raises, too!
Bring your balls and we'll all go!
Spare me to death.
Why do you people always have to bring "God" into
When you can't defend the present why do you always bring up the past?
You just want to make me puke! If you want to bring Jesus into ...sm
the discussion, what would Jesus say about the politics of today, how we provide for the weak, elderly and helpless. I am a Christian but respect people of all faiths. What would Jesus say about 99% of the people of the world living in poverty while less than 1% live in luxury, never using their wealth to help the less fortunate?
I agree...and to bring a Christian viewpoint
..the Bible does state there is a time for peace and a time for war.
well of course...how silly of me...don't bring up the timber in our eyes...
concentrate on the splinter in my own. Got it. LOL.
but bring up Obama's questionable background, and
nm
Biden just can't bring himself to bad mouth McCain
He knows he's already said his peace about Obama. He doesn't like the guy, doesn't think he is trusthworthy, and has questioned Obama's associations time and time again. That said enough for me. If his own VP doesn't care him, then something else is going on. Obama didn't choosen Biden because he thought he wanted him...
Makes one wonder what is really going on here.
Why would Obama bring his entire family
they were all just there as recently as August 7th? Michelle was an effective, seamless stand-in on the trail. Stop and think for a minute. Malia is 10 and Natasha is 7. That would make them both school age. They visited their GM 2-1/2 months ago when, although her health was frail, she was in much better shape, now that she has broken her hip and just been released from the hospital, is "gravely ill" and believed to be near the end.
A couple of things to consider. As responsible parents, it seems to me that the Obamas have all they can say grace over just trying to maintain some sense of normalcy during a heated and often hateful political campaign. Children of this age do their best when their normal routines are maintained. What makes no sense to me is the idea that they should return to Hawaii to see their GM after her health has deteriorated considerably, is weak and probably not looking that good. Personally, I would want to protect my children from seeing that, especially if it meant preserving a final memory of their grandmother during the happier days of a family vacation, rather than a deathbed scene.
I do not see anything "weird" in their decision not to take their children out of school in the middle of the week, put them on a 10-hour 4250 mile flight for a 1-day jet-lagged stay and a final farewell, and then turn them right back around again for a second 10 hour 4250 mile trip.
There is a distinct possibility that in the next 10 days, these children's lives are going to be changed forever, should they become the first children. They will be negotiating the glare of the media and in another 2 months, could be making a move from Chicago to DC into the White House. Hopefully, they will not have to be dealing with the death of their grandmother in the middle of all that.
Can you post the link again? I couldn't bring it up.
I'm from coal country and I heard about this but want to see it with my own eyes.
Me too, I respect what you bring to the board - see message
I've been on this board probably for a couple months or so and I've seen your posts and I enjoy the articles you post and reading your opinions. I too get very tired of posting something and then getting bashed for it. A week or so ago I had made a determination to not post anymore because I was so tired of being bashed and being called a racist because I was not voting for the O. I too would like to have posters stick to issues and not bash. Post information and read it for what it's worth. If you don't like it move on. Thanks to other posters who asked me to stay on I have decided to because we all have the same rights. I'm with you though...stick to articles, information, and issues and let the bashing go.
Just wanted you to know I respect you and hope you'll keep posting.
Hope they bring charges against him for war crimes.
I wonder if there is any member of the GOP who is able to accept these realities and own up to just a fraction of this despicable behavior? His inevitable legacy as the worst US President of all time does not even begin to address the justice he deserves.
Interesting article:How to bring back the big 3
These articles were very interesting. GM states they may stop producing Hummer, Saab, Saturn, and PONTIAC. Geez, what will be left? They dropped my favorite car and now I drive a Buick.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/companies/sachs_carmakers.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009021711
And don't forget this article: What will and Won't Save Detroit
http://money.cnn.com/?cnn=yes
And this one: 4 Questions for GM & Chrysler
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/news/companies/what_to_look_for/index.htm?postversion=2009021615
right, but has he to bring a BIG American flag into the office
too, before even asking what the office policies are regarding this?
Oh slam Obama all day, but don't bring up BUSH
He's the one that put us in the mess. Get it?
They bring out a good point about the strategy being used in Iraq. sm
The more I think about it, I think Bush is trying to keep it cool (keep casualties down) until he gets closer to his last days, then maybe he plans to let them have it. All of this tip toeing around the terrorist is not going to work. They are not going to fight fair. They are taking classes on how to make more powerful bombs without being detected - like the one that killed the 14 US troops this week.
They're stepping up their game and we have to step ours up. I think the drawback from doing this is that it will mean more US troop casualties and more Iraqi civilian deaths, and this administration knows that will cause them a backlash they don't have the balls to sustain.
I can't bring myself to conclude that Bush had a hand in the crime...sm
I think his office new an attack was coming and did not inform the public.
There are also some very interesting findings such as the insurance policy taken out on the WTC with a terrorism provision only a few weeks before the attack. There were other actions that were taken by our government in the months preceeding the attacks that do not add up to it being a surprise attack.
Please don't bring this up again - brought up a lot of unhappy posters about this post
This was one topic that I took such a big offense to. I'm not voting for Obama, so you would think that I would be happy to "chime in", but when ever you start bringing the similarities in names between a known horrible horrible terrorist that committed horrendous crimes against the american people and start linking the name to an american running for president it sure stirs up a hornets nest. I know you are not comparing the two people together (OBL and Barack & Joe) but when you (or others) try to say oh what a coincidence, the first thing that comes to my mind is that deep down you are saying - hey everone Barack Obama and Joe Biden's name are so similar to Osama Bin Laden there must be a connection.
I was deeply offended the last time this was posted and still am. Would it be okay if this topic didn't come up again? Thanks.
I'll bring extra butter...got drinks? sm
Sadly this is degenerating into a no holds barred free-for-all. That being said, Sam's posts at least contain facts and research and provoke discussion. Sally just posts to cause trouble. If you notice, not too many people are paying her much attention.
Very well said. I agree. You and Sam bring a breath of fresh air to this board. sm
I am learning more when I research courtesy of Sam and the more I dig, the more scared I get of Obama. He hasn't said one word about how he is going to fund universal health care for one. I could go on, but won't as the libs flame away at anybody who does not agree with their views and I just don't feel like dealing with it tonight. The last I knew, this was a free country and we are all entitled to our opinions.
Go ahead. Let's bring Reverend Wright back into the conversation...
and Jesse Jacksin (hymietown) and Louis Farrakhan...yeah, let's bring that back into the conversation. If Barack can claim he went to that church for 20 years but doesn't share the theology...so can she, right?
If you are going to fry her now, let's go back to Reverend Wright. You betcha!!
Do irrefutable facts always bring out this kind of snippy sarcasm?
x
Bring us out of the 20th century and plant our feet firmly
Keep it simple.
I would think if they bring them here, when they "let them loose", they would send 'em home
x
With all due respect, I didn't bring up white racists (which I know exist), I was talking about s
the people who are zealous about white power and who will feel compelled to do something bad about a black president. I know it could go either way, but my post was stated because of the high probability that our next President will be black. I understand you completely when you say that there are white racists.
As for Louis Farrkhan, my college roommate was a member of the Nation of Islam and was so racist. She once told me that the reason white folks have those red dots in their eyes
when pictures are taken is because they are all evil and are satan's children. She truly believed that. It was very difficult living with her and I tried to get a transfer out of there, but couldn't and had to put up with A LOT of racism from this black woman. So, I know all about reverse racism.
|
