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

Wanting truth and accountability = hatred?sm

Posted By: LVMT on 2006-08-11
In Reply to: It's all over the board. nm - MT

Dissent, not loyalty to the almighty State is patriotic.


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

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
Wanting the whole truth is fanatical?
nm
Pathetic is not wanting to know the truth
FOS back at you - whatever it means. I'm sure it's not nice.
Once again using your Bush hatred to negate the truth. sm
Aid is getting to New Orleans.  It only happened a few days ago, just how fast can aid be summoned?  If I remember correctly, on 9/11, much of the aid summoned never even reached the people until years later IF AT ALL (Red Cross).   There are 28,000 guardsmen either there or on their way there. 
As Saint Augustine said: "Why does truth call forth hatred?"
as is evidenced here with the unnecessary spiteful attacks initiated on what was only intended to be an innocent discussion that was specifically presented to JTBB.
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!!!!!


 


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
Now wouldn't that bring accountability to the government?sm
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.
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!!
No, curious as in wanting to know...
and it is obvious what you are "compelled" to do.
Not as scary as someone wanting to...
figure out "which factions are involved" before acting (when asked about AL Qaeda).

And I am sure Obama can emphathize with the statement "clumsy word choices" this morning.
That's right. I'm funny that way, wanting to keep
It's called logical thinking. Try it sometime - you'll like it!
My opinion - Not wanting to debate -- SM
Honestly, I believe that two things are going on here:

1) The American people do not have the absolute truth -- neither from the media nor from any government branch nor the President, any committee, etc. The whole truth about any issue has never been put out there.

2) MOST, not all, but MOST people do no really want truth. For people to have truth, they have to be responsible for accepting it (in which USUALLY - not always - is in conflict with how they are currently living and they just don't want the conscience about their own actions) or the responsibility for acting on it. People do not want to have to DO anything; they want others to do it for them. People do not want to have to make changes in their life; they want others to make those changes. People do not want to have ownership of where they could better be involved with their own community, government, country - they want others to do that.

Without the truth and the willingness to accept it for whatever it is, the American people will never have a stable ground to make the next progressive step.

I would say the next issue at hand would be that people simply have different priorities. I'm not referring to the choices we are actually making in our lives, but in what we are saying we want our government to provide, obtain, offer, and protect for us. I see many people SAYING they want the government to "do something" about an issue; however, these very people do not make that choice for themselves personally. Example: I know MANY people who want "the government" to "do something" about the violence and sex on TV, music, etc. However, those same people attend R-rated movies and buy them at Wal-Mart and bring them into their homes, and think some of the roughest or raciest shows are fabulous. It's a contradiction. They do not want to be personally responsible, but they want to demand that others and the government make provisions.

This is just one example of many where I see a contradiction in what we SAY we want and what we are willing to actually be self-responsible for.
Since when did wanting to see ALL Americans prosper
Are you telling me that it is a an either/or situation? In other words, the American dream is only available to those who are willing to setp over their fellow citizens to grab it? If that's the case, sign me up for a little socialism. Sheesh.
Can someone tell me why everyone says Obama is wanting the elderly to die?

I keep reading posts about letting elderly people die.  I did not get to listen to the speech last night, so I do not know what the subject matter was concerning this point and would like to know.


Thanks!


Ron Paul supporter? Not wanting to fight, just asking.
nm
Maybe, but with most terrorists wanting to see Barack elected, that
Wonder why they want him elected so much?
I do disagree about not wanting to give to those who CAN'T work. sm

My sister had brain damage from birth and has never been able to keep a job.  She is able to live on her own, but she barely survives. Our mother, who is retired, took a part-time job to continue to take care of my sister.  What happens when my mother can't do that anymore or dies?  I guess it will be my turn to take care of my sister.  What about people who don't have anyone to do that for them? Do you realize the meager amounts people are given right now barely enable them to survive? You (poster below complaining about giving to those who can't/won't/don't work) would not be able to survive.  You obviously have no idea what hunger feels like or what it is like to go to bed at night as a child with no dinner, no snack, and hope for breakfast the next morning.  I will most certainly give to those who can't work.


another liberal wanting money...waaaa....nm
//
Wanting to see W and his party bite the dust
half (and probably more like 60%) of Americans seem to share. By your (il-)logic, that makes them all jihadists? At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died behind W's war of lies. We are making air strikes into 2 other soverign nations in the midst of a tanking republican presidential campaign. Ever hear of a war of attrition...the kind that wears down a nation from the inside because of the economic drain it places on its population? From where I sit, W played right into the hands the terrorist dealt. Continuation of such saber-rattling imperialism makes terrorist predictions a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bombing countries into democracy, illegal occupations, kangaroo trials and lynching of leaders who do not bend to US will which fail to follow their OWN rule of law, military presence in defiance of overwhelming popular mandates that seek to take back control of their own country, flagrant disregard for human rights, clandestine interrogations, torture and humiliation of POWs not afforded the benefit of a trial, selective stateside vote suppression that overwhelming favors the party that is on its way out and the litany of other such violations of our historic basic principles make a MOCKERY of our own claims to be the greatest democracy on the face of the earth.

Live by example. It's simple. If we are not able to live up to and be accountable for our own basic tenants, we will self-destruct with or without any help from FUTURE leaders.
Personally, lately....I've been wanting to smack....sm
my husband up the side of the head.

He's been saying for weeks that now's the time to buy, and that if we had extra money in our accounts, he'd do it....just this morning, he said he's buy tons of Citigroup, GM, and Ford, as if you do, and hold onto it long enough, you could make a killing.



Needless to say, though....we don't have enough to do this at the moment....he refuses to buy on margin, so we'll just sit here and watch the stock markets.


Now IS the time to buy, though, that's very, very true......

Not honoring her son by wanting answers, and speaking what she knows he felt.sm
He joined the army in 2002 before the Iraqi war began, so it's plenty possible he didn't agree with the Iraqi war.

No logical thinking person would have thought that Bush would focus his attention after 9-11 on Iraq.
Just had a friend last night wanting to use my extra bedroom -
NO WAY - would rather take on 10 extra jobs than let somebody else stay in my house with me again....

have tried it and tried it and it never works...
The truth sounds rude when put bluntly but still is the truth. nm
!!!! hahaha
People wanting less gov't interference in their lives (CONSERVATIVES) are being labeled......sm
Those who attend the Tea Parties are being labeled "right wing extremists." As an organizer of a Tea Party in my town, I am going to wear that label with pride. Below is the quote from the Dept. of Homeland Security:

On the eve of the nationwide tax day Tea Parties, Barack Obama's DHS has issued a "rightwing" threat assessment to warn of the "current economic and political climate fueling resurgence in radicalization and recruitment" for "rightwing extremism." Who are these extremists? According to the report, adherants are rimarily "hate-oriented" or "antigovernment" but also include "individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Personally, I think it is more than quite a coincidence that Obama's DHS is warning of the "rightwing" threat on the eve of the Tea Parties! This is a blatant attempt to taint the efforts of those who are standing for the patriotic, idea-based resistance.

Anything or anyone who does not toe the Obamarama line or has not drunk the kook-aid, is automatically considered a "right wing extremist."

There is a 10 page document put out by an office which is a branch of the Dept Homeland Security called "The Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division. Coordinated with the FBI.

There are 4 words that should make you very nervous....COORDINATED WITH THE FBI. Below is the link to download or read the PDF file.

http://api.ning.com/files/UNNlkOVukw8cXztJc4bDEq2ztrm9owekwvHofmLwYgxLlpwX8*h1av8amHehbYkmt3Qvxny16Gh1ob8gFYeRrw2HVq-joU7Y/hsarightwingextremism0904071.pdf

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Remember,Rome decayed from within.

Ok, off my soapbox.


i agree. of course, the white male would be called a racist too for not wanting a minority to succed
//
Liberal truth vs. Conservative truth.
x
Well of hatred???
Extremist talking point. Do you realize that this entire plan of attack, i.e. liberals hate this and hate that and ooze this and ooze that and spew this and spew that requires not one iota of rational or analytical thought. It is simply responding to just about anything a liberal says with bumper sticker talk, no cognitive thought going on whatsoever. It is becoming tiresome.
No hatred
for a group of people but a nasty, immoral type of behavior. There is a difference.
Hatred
for immoral acts is not a sin.
I don't see her as being consumed by hatred.

From her posts, it's clear that she's a very compassionate, kind, intelligent person who is capable of thinking independent thoughts.  She cares about people who need help in this country.  Nobody who is consumed by hatred can do that.


She's expressed fear and concern and frustration at this administration and where it's taking us, and she expressed anger at the person who's leading us in that direction.  She's not alone.  An increasing number of Americans feel the same way.


The only person I see consumed by hatred is YOU.  You've repeatedly littered this board with your hateful posts.  It's very easy to see who the hateful people are.


I suggested below that you/all the others (assuming there really is more than one) should be ignored. You contribute nothing to this board but anger, rage, hatred and skewed thinking. 


Having said that, I won't bother reading/responding to your posts any more.  It's simply not worth it because you don't want to debate.  All you want to do is attack others. 


I pity you.


River of hatred???

If Michael Moore has tapped into the river of hatred of the Democrats, what about a guy like Rush Limbaugh? What has he tapped into, the river of good will of the Republicans?


Elections are held every two years, and this election the people chose a majority of Democratic candidates.  I for one am glad that they did if for no other reason than it will bring new perspectives into a government that has been completely controlled by one party.  Further hope is that it may bring changes that work to the good of all of us.


I did not say river of hatred....
I said Michael Moore tapped into hatred and that liberals are on a river of denial...and I believe that. Why else would the very first thing they announced was that they planned to investigate Bush and corruption (not corrupt Democrats, just corrupt Republicans) and at least two have posted on the liberal board that they think terrorism should be on back burner to investigating Bush. Something is VERY, VERY wrong with that line of thinking, and that stems from hatred and revenge, certainly not any concern for this country.
You are so consumed by hatred
nm
Me too. Am so tired of their hatred.
nm
I did check. It is much more hatred for the right
nm
Too much hatred and lies here

I come (used to come) to this board to hear about the candidates.  Instead all I'm reading lately is posters attacking others for posting their viewpoints.  Someone posts something about Obama and the O supporters attack them "lies" they call them.  They don't defend Obama but instead insult and attack the poster.  Then they come out and say "oh poor me, you just hate Obama, your so insulting" while at the same time calling them every name in the book.  What I'm hearing is the republicans are trying to shed some light on what Obama is but some of the democrats don't want to hear it and already exclaim that Obama has won.  They are condescending towards anyone who has a different viewpoint than theirs.  They won't read anything that has negative things to say about Obama and they won't read anything that has anything positive to say about McCain.  It's just hate-filled spew that comes out.  You'll cite polls if they favor Obama, and if they favor McCain you ignore them.  You won't even admit that the race is too close to call.  In your minds Obama has already won the election.  You'll support cheating if it favors Obama and condemn it if it favors McCain.  You'd rather live your lives having government regulate your lives, tell you what you can and cannot do, and take all your money to give a check to the people who are able to work but won't because why should they since they are receiving a check from government, while you are being told its your patriotic duty to give to these poor fellow Americans.  You'd rather have an inexperienced radical person running the country than someone who has experience and has shown by his voting record that he fights for the American people.  Yet not giving any reason (being older is not a reason).  I have not yet read any posts that are positive reasons for Obama being president, just hate-filled garbage against Palin.  Also makes me wonder why people are trying to keep Biden out of the spotlight.  Makes me want to find out more about what he's done in the past.


So I have decided to give the board a rest for awhile and will be back to vist after the election is over.  I'm no longer getting any valuable information here.  We have not had an election yet.  The polls are too close to call and even then you can't rely on the polls to give you accurate information (after all these polls are incuding all the dead people, pets, Santa Claus, Mary Poppins, Rama Dama Ding Dong, and all the other fictitious people, not to mention the people who registered 13 and 14 times or more as a democrat) in their polls.  I remember back in 2000 everyone was claiming Gore had won the election and it was very very close and look what happened.  He lost.


I will also continue to listen to all stations, and read all articles so I can at least get a fair and balance opinion of what is going on. 


So have at it y'all.  You seem to love attacking people for no reason and when I read these posts I can really feel the negativity and hatred oozing.  So maybe I'll just stick to the Gab board - I need some more positive vibes. 


P.S. - Just one more note.  Whoever wins will win, and whether it is democrat or republican we will deal with it.  When a democrat has won in the past there were no riots, republicans continued to try to work with the democrats, but we all know what happened the last two times a republican won.  As for the threats of "if Obama doesn't win there's going to be rioting in the streets".  Well if that does happen that goes to show you how many biggots wanted him in just because he's black - all the things they claim don't matter will come out.


over the hatred from the left... I see so much of it
nm
More hatred against Obama
This video has the same creep with the monkey in it. He calls the monkey little Hussein. Can't hide this time buddy. Link below.
Sorry, but I am independent. As far as hatred,
nm
Hatred some of you have towards her is obsessive
nm
I absolutely HAVE seen such hatred

before, and it was turned against Bush.  'He's a moron, a retard, a national embarrassment a bumbler, a fool, a cowboy, a yokel.'   'So happy the moron is gone and we have Obama.' yada, yada, yada.  And it's still going on, right on this very board, although (and I hate to break it to everyone) Bush ain't prez anymore and did not run in the last election. 


I think it's impressive that Obama has managed to draw all this fire in 90 short days!   It took some dems twice that long to hate Bush's guts. 


There is no hatred in that post
You just don't like to hear that we don't bow down to your lord like you do. There is nothing hateful or slanderous about her/his post. It is the way that over half the country feels.

Read the constitution - it is in our constitutional right to stand up when something is wrong and say something.


The truth, the whole truth and nothing but...It's probably the biggest...sm
reason why I am voting democrat...they seem more honest than the the republicans and it looks like people are starting to get smart and *bailin' Palin*... We don't need to keep hearing her *greatest hits" version of her acceptance speech over and over and McSame's POW story...that was then, this is now...we need REAL change and we need it NOW. I don't need someone to push the red button, I need someone to fix the economy!
Truth? The truth is she is nuts!
nm
Your ignorance and hatred know no bounds. nm

I don't know what rabid hatred feels like.
Would you please describe it to me?
The terms used against Bush can only be described as hatred. sm
I can truthfully say, this place sounds like the DU and that is not a compliment.  Oh, I know, I know, this is the liberal board.  Gosh, I long for the days when we talked on the same board.  Fights or not, it was challenging.  Anyway, I am back to school next week, so I won't be hanging out anymore.  Bet you'll miss me!!!  Not!