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

War is a Partisan Decision (and more on amnesty for terrorists)

Posted By: PK on 2006-06-21
In Reply to:

Now here's an honest Republican.  Very refreshing!






URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_4781865,00.html
Duncan: War is a partisan decision


Knox Republican opposed successful GOP bill aimed at testing Democrats




WASHINGTON - War should not be a partisan decision by Congress, but it generally appears to have become that, Knoxville Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., a war opponent, said on the House floor Friday.

I believe 80 percent of Republicans would have opposed the war in Iraq if it had been started by President (Bill) Clinton or (Al) Gore, and probably almost all the Democrats would have been supporting it, as they did the bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo (during the Clinton administration), Duncan said.

Under Democrat Clinton's presidency, when he planned bombings in Bosnia and Kosovo, 80 percent of Republicans, including Duncan, opposed it, Duncan noted.

In a vote Friday, Duncan was the only Tennessee Republican and one of just three Republicans nationally to oppose a Republican-drafted bill aimed at questioning Democrats' commitment to national security several months before the November general election. It passed 256-153. Democrats voted 149-42 against it, and one Independent opposed it.

The nonbinding legislation refused to set any dates for changing troop strength in Iraq, labeled the Iraq war part of the global war on terrorism, and praised U.S. troops' sacrifice in Iraq.

Duncan, one of the most conservative House members, said everyone supports the troops. It is certainly no criticism of them to criticize this war, he said. I am steadfastly opposed to this war, and I have been since the beginning. We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home - the sooner the better.

Two other Tennessee members opposed the resolution: Democrats Harold Ford Jr. of Memphis and John Tanner of Union City.

Voting in favor were Republicans Bill Jenkins of Rogersville, Zach Wamp of Chattanooga, and Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood; and Democrats Lincoln Davis of Pall Mall, Jim Cooper of Nashville, and Bart Gordon of Murfreesboro.

Ford and Tanner said they strongly support the troops. But they noted that current Iraqi government leaders reportedly are considering granting amnesty to Iraqis who killed U.S. troops as acts of resistance and defense of their homeland. They cannot support a government that would grant such amnesty, Ford and Tanner said in written statements.

Ford, a U.S. Senate candidate, called the Republican resolution a gimmick that fails to recognize that 'stay the course' is not working and that amnesty for terrorists is unforgivable.

Tennessee supporters generally said they wanted to demonstrate confidence in U.S. troops in Iraq.

Premature withdrawal is not an option, Wamp said in a recorded statement. It's an effective surrender. It's important that we stand firm and that we finish what we started and that the world sees that we're going to honor our commitments to the people of Iraq and the people of the Middle East.

Davis, the only Democrat serving part of East Tennessee, accused Republican leaders of using the legislation as a political tool to try to make Democrats look sheepish. In a written statement, he said he has visited Iraq four times to show the troops that Congress supports their work.

But Davis said federal officials now should focus on how we stabilize the country ... and how we get our troops home safe as soon as possible.

Richard Powelson may be reached at 202-408-2727.




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

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

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


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



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



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



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



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




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


He wants amnesty for illegals. How is that

How is amnesty for illegals GOOD for Americans?  It's NOT!  Cut off the ability for them to work here.  Every time they are picked up by police, ship them home.  Secure the border.  Compared to all the spending Obama wants to do, these are CHEAP solutions that will free up jobs for hard-working Americans.  Not great jobs, no, but jobs that can help make ends meet in hard times!  Jobs for the ones first laid off!  Spending money on "good" causes is not what is needed during a crisis like this.  Saving money and very careful spending that promotes private enterprise and hiring are what will rescue us. 


I completely disagree with the Republicans who stopped the 95% taxing of the bonuses to AIG employees.  That was one obviously smart thing the Dems were trying to do, and I'm furious the Reps stopped it. 


I've been sending faxes to my reps on these important issues.  You can too, through the Numbers USA website.  Let our elected leaders know we aren't falling for their propaganda, and we know there are smarter, cheaper solutions to our country's problems.   www.numbersusa.com/ 


 


 


Amnesty for illegals

I am amazed nearly everyday with the idiotic things that come from our government.  This one about made me spit out my beverage when I heard it.  Amnesty for illegals is a horribly bad idea.  What message does that send to the ones who are trying to become citizens the right way.  This also sends a message for more and more illegals to come our way.  This is an outrage.  Absolutely ridiculous!  We spend billions of dollars on illegals the way that it is. 


This wouldn't have anything to do with Obama's aunt or anything.....now would it?  Or maybe this is just his ploy to get more votes by turning them into legal citizens.  Either way.....it is an ignorant thing to do.  This is one area I truly 100% disagreed with McCain on.  He wanted amnesty too. 


BAD IDEA!!!


We tried amnesty once already in 1986
and it just resulted in a bigger wave of illegals because then everybody figured we'd just do it again and they could stay.  Hey, presto!  Looks like they might have been right. 
Amnesty International's press release on Lebanon....sm
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-220805-feature-eng
19 Republicans vote in favor of amnesty for those who kill our soldiers.

In the Senate today, 19 Senators voted that it was okay for the Iraqi government to give amnesty to anyone known to have attacked, killed or injured American soldiers, and every single one of them was a Republican.  I guess this is an example of how Republicans *support* the troops.  The only one that truly surprises me is McCain.  He must have lost his mind since he began pandering to those who believe they are Bush's *base.*


Vote Summary:
Question: On the Amendment (Nelson (FL) Amdt. No. 4265 )
Vote Number: 178 Vote Date: June 20, 2006, 03:27 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:S.Amdt. 4265 to S. 2766 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Vote Counts
: YEAs 79
NAYs: 19
Not Voting: 2


Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position


NAYs ---19
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Warner (R-VA)


Not Voting--- 2
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Shelby (R-AL)


YEAs ---79
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/20/19-gop-senators-vote-agai_n_23445.html


Here is one, but it's partisan left! sm

Neighbors for Peace to "Raise the Bar" for Democratic Candidates


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


St. Paul, MN – June 17, 2003 – When national Democratic leaders visit St. Paul next week, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace and other Minnesota organizations will be on the scene to question presidential candidates, raising the electoral bar for peace, justice, and environmental issues.


The Association of State Democratic Chairs and the Democratic National Committee will convene this weekend at the Radisson Riverfront Hotel at 11 East Kellogg Boulevard in St. Paul. Gearing up for the 2004 presidential elections, Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace will be outside the hotel on Friday, June 20, from 2:30 to 5:30 p.m. to invite the candidates to join concerned Minnesota Democrats in dialogue about critical issues.


"People are leaving the Democratic party in droves, because in recent elections the candidates have become so centrist that they are almost indistinguishable from the Republicans," comments Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace co-founder, Anne Benson. "We want to see the Democratic party return to its progressive roots—to stand up for working people and poor people, and to fight against the regressive domestic and foreign policies of the Bush administration."


The neighbors from the Merriam Park area of St. Paul hold that in recent elections, Democratic candidates have lost their chance to take office because they've neglected the concerns of their own voters.


"It has always been said, 'There are more Democrats than Republicans; we just need to get out the vote,'" states member, Steve Schwarz. "We, however, need a reason to get out the vote. Many Democrats have felt alienated and misrepresented by the party and have looked instead to other alternatives. We believe in the principles that made the Democratic party what it was and still can be today. Remember, we in Minnesota have supported a long line of Democratic politicians who voted on principle and not on predictions of popularity. We expect our candidates to make peace and justice issues a priority."


Adds Benson, "We're encouraging candidates to ask themselves the hard questions: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Was I misled by the administration when I voted for the War Powers Resolution? How do we get out of this quagmire in Iraq? Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on too many civil liberties?"


Merriam Park Neighbors for Peace has invited all Democratic candidates to meet with them after their sessions conclude on Friday to answer a series of fourteen questions regarding issues of pre-emptive war, international relations, arms development, military spending, V.A. benefits, U.S. economy, social programs, employment, globalization, education, health care, civil liberties, terrorism, and environmental policy. They invite all Minnesotans with these concerns to join them in St. Paul on Friday in addressing the candidates.


"We're not endorsing a particular candidate," group member, Jeanne Schnitzen, notes. "We're giving them all a chance to look us in the eye and answer to the issues we vote for. If they're really in this race to turn the tides, we'll make sure they get that chance. I want to believe there is a Democratic candidate who is capable of sowing the seeds of change."


Why not put your partisan views aside and tell us this: Do YOU think sm
that Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? I am neither a conservative nor a democrat, and I do not think he deserved to win it. I'm with the Observer on this one. Anyone with a molecule of sense knows that the two just don't go together - global warming and peace.
The Nobel Prizes were established in the will of Nobel, a Swedish industrialist who died in 1896. The only framework he set for the peace prize was that it should honor people who have promoted "fraternity between nations," peace conferences or the "abolition or reduction of standing armies."

Hmmmmmmmm
Someone less partisan and more uplifting
Joel Olsten. If he was looking to "reach out" to the conservative right, I'd much rather see even Pat Robertson (!), who at least has shown some capacity to embrace the realities of the demise of his party and some insight into where they REALLY need to be focusing their energy.
Spoken as a true partisan.

No, spoken TO a true partisan

Only the conservatives on these boards fail to open their eyes and be objective when it comes to Bush and his actions.  They're obviously partisan conservatives.


However, the people who continue to defend Bennett after Bush himself condemned Bennett's statement... well, there's a name for them, as well.


I think we're starting to see a divide in the conservative party.  Those who just blindly follow Bush, unwilling or unable to see what's really happening, and the more sinister, dangerous, racist group who wouldn't mind seeing all black babies aborted.  Those who insist on defending Bennett are emphasizing that distinction, which is a good thing.  Let these people reveal themselves for what they really are.


#1, The Nation is extremely partisan. #2.

Tillman didn't talk about why he went into the service to anyone.  We will have to assume that what his mother is saying is true.  Has the wife spoken out?  I would think if he told his deepest heart's secrets, it would be to her.  She was his high school sweetheart.  Here's a snippet from a Newsweek article. 


He joined the service just after a honeymoon to Bora Bora with his high-school sweetheart, Marie. He and a younger brother, Kevin, slipped off to enlist in Denver, where they could avoid publicity. Kevin, who gave up a budding minor-league baseball career, remains in the Army. Pat Tillman wanted no attention, no glory, for joining the rank and file. He didn't want to be singled out from his brothers and sisters in the military, says former Cardinals coach Dave McGinnis. Tillman apparently had made a pact with his family to stay silent about his service, a promise they have kept. They have gathered to grieve inside the comfortable family home in a leafy enclave of San Jose.


His was no simple case of patriotism; Tillman was never known as a flag-waver. His agent, Frank Bauer, told reporters he had suspected that Tillman might quit to teach or to practice law like his father, Patrick Sr., but not to join the military. Snyder, his college coach, said Tillman never used the word patriotism when he explained his plans to enlist. He just seemed to think something had to be done. When players asked why he enlisted, he didn't want to talk about it. McGinnis says there were reasons Pat said he had that he didn't want to divulge, and the coach respected his view and his right to make his own path. Tillman had always been different. When he joined the pros, he rode a bicycle to practice because he didn't own a car. He refused to buy a cell phone. A sports publicist at Arizona State once described him as a surfer dude.


It seems his mother decided the pact no longer had any merit.  Personally, I see another Cindy Sheehan, disobeying her son's wishes. 


Most non-partisan sources would not agree with you

But you would have to read something other than far-right-wing propaganda, which you probably don't.  Try getting a more global perspective and you will be less naive and less gullible. Unfortunately, if you had a more non-partisan world view you would also probably stop attributing all the problems of the world to the leftists.  And then who would you have left to insult?


Part of the fault lies with lack of follow-through in Afghanistan but the major problem lies with Pakistan which has been the major breeding ground of the Taliban and terrorists for years.  The U.S. pretty did a cut-and-run in tracking down bin Laden. 


What is the answer to all this?  I don't know.  However, I do know that Pakistan's support of terrorism and the Taliban has been in place for a long, long time and is not the result of the Iraq peace movement in the United States, despite what your extremely partisan sources may insist. 


Agreed. And anyone who looks at it objectively and not through partisan...
glasses could see it too. Fox has a lot more Democrat contributors and commentators than MSNBC, the major broadcast outlets or CNN. And Fox has more viewers, so apparently it is the choice of a lot of Americans.

And as to the debates...Obama didn't want anything near a town hall before his convention. I read he was going to come up through the floor in a set that looks like a Greek temple to accept his nomination. I thought to myself you have GOT to be kidding. His spokesman didn't deny it, just said it was tastefully done. Okay, a tastefully done temple. Oh my. Well, I reserve any opinion until I see it.
This is no partisan blame game.
long saga of voter registration/voter fraud, election and campaign finance reform. Left-wing progressives have been focusing on this issue since 2000 but so far, nobody has listened because they are so busy dismissing them for being lefties. It is that id of partisan division and bickering that at the moment has our country so frozen up with spite that we cannot even managed to put together a clean election. We have no business trying to bring democracy to any other developing or third world countries until we at least get this part of our own back yard cleaned up. In terms of THIS election, 18 days before D-Day...a litle late in the game.
Yes, and condescending, biased, partisan.
nm
It is called putting aside partisan politics for the
.
Partisan-led inquiry.....no real big srprise there...sm
Try telling the both sides of the article and judgment please:

Excerpt from CNN:

A spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign responded by calling the investigation "a partisan-led inquiry" run by supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, but hailing its finding that Monegan's firing broke no law.

"Gov. Palin was cleared of the allegation of an improper firing, which is what this investigation was approved to look into," campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said.

She said the Legislature exceeded its mandate in finding an ethics violation. "Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact," she said.

Rep. John Coghill, a Republican who criticized the handling of the investigation, said it was "well-done professionally."

But he said some of the conclusions were judgment calls by Branchflower, and recommended readers should view them with a "jaundiced eye."

RNC: Partisan politics in times like this is unhealthy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/us/politics/24web-nagourney.html?bl&ex=1230354000&en=16a3dd67da5bac74&ei=5087%0A


For Now, Obama Proves to be an Elusive Target for the GOP


Dr. King transcended partisan ties in message and in deeds.
x
what decision?? nm
nm
Well, are you saying it should be O's decision? (nm)
x
Not O's decision...(sm)
the supreme court's decision.
Obviously, the right decision. I'm sure you still
Here, the cruel choice would have been to let this poor infant go to term.

Let not your heart be troubled; this child is with God and has been made whole. You'll be reunited one day, I'm sure.
But who and how would that decision be made
From a legal perspective? Say "convenience" abortions are made illegal. I get pregnant and decide I want to have a "convenience" abortion. However, I know these are illegal, so I say the guy raped me. Who gets to pick in which cases abortion is permitted and in which cases it's not?

This is my main concern. You're preaching to the choir on the rest of it, because it used to disgust me when I would type reports and a woman would've had 15 abortions. I do not agree with that at all, and I don't think there are many who do. But, logistically speaking, again, it's either legal or illegal.
Seems like a logical decision

to reject a man who would guarantee that the election would be lost.  There is a lot at stake here.  I think that is a good example of him putting Country First, not his own personal preference, if indeed his preference was Lieberman.


making right decision

This is my first post on the Politics board.  I'm struggling with my decision between voting D or R. 


I'm a registered Democrat and have been pro O'Bama 100%... until this past week when I read "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America at www.actforamerica.org. 


First, I am in no way saying O'Bama is Muslim, I do not believe that, but I am concerned with his voting record regarding bills that would protect us here at home.    I'm middle class and believe me, I want to support the tax cuts and programs he is talking about... 


I do not understand why either side will not stand up and call the "War on Terror" what it really is.  I see the American traditions I grew up with disappearing and being replaced with "politically correct" traditions.  A supposedly holy book (Koran) calling for my death or to strip me of my rights as a woman.  On and on and on. 


I haven't seen anything mentioned about this issue and I am interested in how other women/men feel. 


I'm happy for you and that your decision
Had your family or the father tried to force you to abort, you would have acted accordingly and not listened to them, rather to your inner voice. There is no one-decision-fits-all when answering this question. For that reason, it is only fair that each woman is given the same consideration, to listen to their own gut and act in accordance to what it is telling her. She too will face the outcome, regardless of what the resolution will be and that is as it should be. If you are "tired" of hearing "my body, my right," don't listen. You made your choice. Let others have the same.
I have made my decision -

I have tried to educate people about Obama and his christianity - the fact that he is NOT muslim, his health care plans - the fact that it is NOT universal healthcare he is proposing, his tax programs - the fact that he is NOT going to write a check to people who are not working... and it is NOT working.  They just do not want to believe.  And for the most part, it is not even the economy people are picking on him about now - everyone is still on this muslim crap, mad because he is getting his girls a dog, just nitpicking!  It is ridiculous.


I will no longer try to help people see the truth.  If they want to be miserable and think bad thoughts and harbor suspicion and hatred in their hearts, then it is their life and nobody can change those folks anyway.  I am sure it is not just the election that makes them mean and nasty - probably are that way in every aspect of their lives...


I myself choose to look on the bright side of things and the hope that this country is turning around and will be AMERICA THE GREAT once again!!!  The America that other countries envy and want to be!


 


But it isn't your decision to make, is it?
Trot yourself down to DC and make a REAL difference if you feel so strongly about it. It is an attorney's job to represent his client's INTERESTS. Get it? They are in it for the money - just like you work for money. I'm not too worried about his moral compass after witnessing Larry Craig, Foley, Abramoff, Libby......need I go on?
I think he made the right decision...
in not releasing the alleged abuse photos yesterday.

Other than that, I've not been his biggest fan and have to agree with A. Nonymous as to where he's taking this country.
Please don't base your decision on who you vote...sm
for on this or any other board. Look at the issues and make your decisions based on them, not personalities or rhetoric.
It shouldn't be. It's a private decision, not one to
.
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?

The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm
nm
There was no decision to be made. I was dealing with a
human life and no way would I ever have killed that baby.  We will never agree, so we should probably just agree to disagree on this one.  Have a blessed day!  
Thank you and I have equal respect for your decision. s/m
We can all only vote for what we hope (there's that word HOPE again) that we have made the right decision.  I do have FAITH in the American people that all of us will come together and take it in our hands to clean up this country at some point.  Neither candidate nor member of Congress is going to look out for "we the people" until we stand up on our hind legs and DEMAND it.  That is our right under the Constitution of the United States of American and I HOPE we will do it.  We did it on a small scale after 9/11.   I say "small scale" because while everyone came together, it didn't last long and we all went back to business as usual.  If the prediction of us being in such dire straits as we are "warned" about on a daily basis if Obama is elected, I think we ain't seen nothing yet as how the AMERICAN people will band together and DEMAND change.  However, if McCain gets in the White House, as I think he will, we'll continue right on down the garden path just as we have the last 8 years.  AND it won't surprise me if before this election is done  Bush declares martial law and then we are for sure in a fine fix.  Use your noggins for a change instead of just trying to get McCain elected, we ain't rid of George W. Bush YET.
And if you read the previous decision on this
the judge raled on and on for pages about Berg and frivolous law suits.
Could be, but it's their decision to make, not yours, not the govt
x
I agree with O's decision. Showing this
awful tortures, yes, they were very awful, might endanger the American soldiers, especially if they get caught and might be exposed to the 'same' tortures.
I commend you on a courageous decision
It doesn't sound like it was an easy decision for you to make. But sounds like you did what was right.
you made the right decision, I, too, commend you....nm
nm
sorry, Obama did not make this decision -
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/ButlervPerry.html

It was decided in 1916!
Have you been watching the convention and does this help you in your voting decision

Have you been watching the Democrat convention and what do you think so far?  I watched it last night.  Lots of commentaries that were a little boring.  I will definitely NOT watch when both Hillary & Bill speak (they will have nothing interesting to hear), but I will watch everything else.  Loved the tribute to Kennedy.  His health condition is tragic.  He's done so much good while in the senate.  Also found Michelle to be a wonderful speaker and a very good hearted person.  She grew up and was raised similar to my beliefs and how I was raised.  She knows the struggles we Americans face every day.  I think Barack and Michelle are just a couple of very down to earth, well grounded individuals and their daughters are simply adorable.


On the republican side I am equally anxious to watch that convention.  I need to hear Cindy McCain talk before I can decide what kind of a person I think she is.  I want to hear about her and John McCain's story and what their family is like.


Does the convention help you in your choice of who you will vote for.


It is a fair question. The decision will have to be made during the next...
President's administration. All I asked is, would you support him? Why are you afraid to answer?
I need more than "shock and awe" to make an intelligent decision on this one...
As far as the fairness of evaluating a nominee who is a lawyer based on the argument that they advocated for a client or who they represented and the standard it sets for future nominees, I’m a big believer in reciprocity. If Obama ever opposed or criticized any of then President Bush’s nominees or any other President’s nominees because of who they represented or the arguments they made on their client’s behalf, then what’s good for the goose. . .
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?

JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
I agree with Obama's decision to not show them. (sm)

It would embolden our enemies and help to recruit more terrorists.  I thought Obama, once again, listened to both sides and then made his decision.  If only Bush could have done that, instead of only hiring aides that would reflect HIS views and discarding those who didn't, including some of those "generals on the ground" that Bush claimed to honor.


I don't understand the posts below about Obama showing the photos.  Last I heard, the complete opposite was true.  Did something change, or are these comments just another attempt to completely ignore the truth in order to continue their assault on Obama, regardless of whether it's true or not?


Typical, let someone make a decision in a free country..
to support the person he believes is best and his party turns on him like he is a traitor. How can you call yourself Democrats with a straight face?

I am raising my hand...I certainly give a flying frito if someone wants to send this country down the road to a Marxist government. How is that working for Cuba? For Venezuela?


Obama Decision to Move Census to White House...
GOP Sounds Alarm Over Obama Decision to Move Census to White House
A number of Republicans are joining the fight to put the census issue into the political spotlight "before it's too late."

FOXNews.com

Monday, February 09, 2009

1 x
in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.
199 Comments | Add Comment
ShareThisPhotos

The Census Bureau's U.S. Population Clock (Census.gov)

PEOPLE WHO READ THIS...
Also read these stories:
Stimulus Package Clears Key Procedural Hurdle in Senate
[2009-02-09]
gop sounds off on 'spendulus', gop, gop sounds off on stimulus, stimulus, stimulus passes senate test vote
987 visitors also liked this.
Private Sector Likely to Have Role in Government Bank Bailout Plan
[2009-02-09]
84 visitors also liked this.
Leahy Calls for 'Truth' Panel to Investigate Bush Administration
[2009-02-09]
72 visitors also liked this.
Graham Says Obama Is 'AWOL' on Stimulus Debate
[2009-02-05]
graham slams obama calls him 'awol on leadership', this process stinks, obama, graham slams obama callshim 'awol on leadership', graham obama 'awol' on stimulus debate
6345 visitors also liked this.
Schumer Calls for Ticketmaster Probe Over Suspicious Springsteen Sales
[2009-02-09]
help find the 'spendulus' pork, help
298 visitors also liked this.
powered by BaynoteUtah's congressional delegation is calling President Obama's decision to move the U.S. census into the White House a purely partisan move and potentially dangerous to congressional redistricting around the country.


Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told FOX News on Monday that he finds it hard to believe the Obama administration felt the need to place re-evaluation of the inner workings of the census so high on his to-do list, just three weeks into his presidency.

"This is nothing more than a political land grab," Chaffetz said.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, told the Salt Lake Tribune that the move "shouldn't happen." He and Chaffetz are trying to rally Republicans "before its too late."

"It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.


The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts

As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering.

The census also determines the composition of the Electoral College, which chooses the president. If one party were to control the census, it could arguably try to perpetuate its hold on political power.


The results of the census are also enormously important in another way -- the allocation of federal funds. Theoretically, a political party could disproportionately steer federal funding to areas dominated by its own members through a skewing of census numbers.

At this point the White House doesn't seem willing to say what Emanuel's role will be in overseeing the census, and White House officials say census managers will work closely with top-level White House staffers, but will technically remain part of the Commerce Department.

But critics say the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

"The last thing the census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers. Many federal funding formulas depend on them, as well as the whole fabric of federal and state representation. Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted," Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, told FOX News in an e-mail.

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans.

When Obama nominated New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to be commerce secretary -- he was later forced to withdraw -- he indicated that Richardson would be in charge of the census.

The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed "sampling" by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.

Sabato said moving the census "in-house" will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is "too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention."

"I've always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: 'Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.' The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn't being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term," Sabato said.

Obama on his decision to deploy additional 17,000 troops in Afghanistan..sm
"There is no more solemn duty as President than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way," Obama said. "I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action."