Yes, BASH BUSH - he should be tried for war crimes!!
Posted By: sm on 2009-02-05
In Reply to: Thanks for your honesty. The left cant stand - to hear it. Instead, Bash Bush over and over.nm
He put us in this mess - the SOB should be tried for treason, corruption and war crimes. Oh wait, he probably has a layer of insulation between him and Scooter Libby. Huh.
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
Corporation owned media does not bash Bush, they bash those that bash Bush.sm
Google Bush and vote fraud and there is tons of information about how many Americans 'voted' for Bush. Poor us and poor troops.
What they want is to be able to bash McCain, bash Bush, and bash Palin...
in private, their own little hatefest, slap each other on the back and high five...they could not care less about any issues. That should be patently obvious. And rather sad.
Why Bush should be tried for war crimes....(sm)
A very good case I think.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28740622
Petition for Bush War Crimes
We the undersigned citizens of the United States hereby formally petition you to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in War Crimes.
These crimes are being euphemistically referred to as "abusive interrogation techniques" by such respected figures as Senator John McCain. These are euphemisms for torture. Torture is a War Crime. Waterboarding is a War Crime. The CIA has admitted waterboarding detainees. Recently, Vice President Cheney has brazenly admitted authorizing the program that led to waterboarding, other forms of torture too numerous to list, and ultimately, the deaths by homicide of detainees.
As Major General Antonio Taguba, the Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has stated:
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
The Washington Post recently summarized the Senate Armed Services Committee Report on detainee treatment thusly:
A bipartisan panel of senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.
We the undersigned citizens demand a full and thorough investigation immediately upon your taking office. This investigation should be pursued no matter where it may lead and no matter what the political implications may be. To this end, we remind you that you work not on behalf of or for the President or the Congress, but for the People of the United States of America and for Justice itself.
The United States is a representative democracy. The actions of our government officials are done in the name of its citizens. War Crimes have been committed in our name. Torture has been done in our name. The only way to clear our name of War Crimes is to repudiate them through the aggressive prosecution of each and every person involved to the full extent of the law through the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
If Bush, etc were not guilty, why do they need a War Crimes Act protection? sm
Why would you need to seek protection if your not ALREADY sure you are guilty?
They must be scared. Could charges be just around the corner? I am going to assume it isn't just about authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, this also about 911/false-flag ops, Wanta's fund and many other charges they are soon to face.
Bush's Answer? Change the War Crimes Act!
August 29, 2006
Retroactive Laws Invoked to Protect Administration Officials from War Crimes Prosecution
Bush Turns His Terror War on the Homeland
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
When I was a kid John Wayne war movies gave us the message that America was the good guy, the white hat that fought the villain.
Alas, today the US and its last remaining non-coerced ally, Israel, are almost universally regarded as the bad guys over whom John Wayne would triumph. Today the US and Israel are seen throughout the world as war criminal states.
On August 23 the BBC reported that Amnesty International has brought war crimes charges against Israel for deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as an integral part of Israel's strategy in its recent invasion of Lebanon.
Israel claims that its aggression was self-defense to dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Yet, Israel bombed residential communities all over Lebanon, even Christian communities in the north in which no Hezbollah could possibly have been present.
United Nations spokesman Jean Fabre reported that Israel's attack on civilian infrastructure annihilated Lebanon's development: Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month.
Israel maintains that this massive destruction was unintended collateral damage.
President Bush maintains that Israel has a right to protect itself by destroying Lebanon.
Bush blocked the attempt to stop Israel's aggression and is, thereby, equally responsible for the war crimes. Indeed, a number of reports claim that Bush instigated the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
Bush has other war crime problems. Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side by side with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The US Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crime charges under both the US War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.
President Bush and his Attorney General agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
One of Bush's changes would deny protection of the Geneva Conventions to anyone in any American court.
Bush's other change would protect from prosecution any US government official or military personnel guilty of violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits at any time and in any place whatsoever outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment. As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff observes, this change would also undo Senator John McCain's amendment against torture.
Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice says that Bush's changes immunize past crimes.
Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their President's attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel and civilian contractors from war crimes?
Apparently, the self-righteous morally superior American Christian public could care less. The Republican controlled House and Senate, which long ago traded integrity for power, are working to pass Bush's changes prior to the mid-term elections in the event the Republicans fail to steal three elections in a row and Democrats win control of the House or Senate.
Meanwhile, the illegal war in Iraq, based entirely on Bush administration lies, grinds on, murdering and maiming ever more people. According to the latest administration estimate, the pointless killing will go on for another 10-15 years.
Trouble is, there are no US troops to carry on the war. The lack of cannon fodder forces the Bush administration to resort to ever more desperate measures. The latest is the involuntary recall of thousands of Marines from the inactive reserves to active duty. Many attentive people regard this desperate measure as a sign that the military draft will be reinstated.
According to President Bush, the US will lose the war on terror unless the US succeeds in defeating the Iraqi terrorists by establishing democracy in Iraq. Of course, insurgents resisting occupation are not terrorists, and there were no insurgents or terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded.
Bush's unjustified invasion of Iraq and his support for Israeli aggression have done more to create terrorism in the Muslim world than Osama bin Laden could hope for. The longer Bush occupies Iraq and the more he tries to extend US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, the more terrorism the world will suffer.
Bush and the Zionist/neocon ideology that holds him captive are the greatest 21st century threats to peace and stability. The neoconized Bush regime invented the war on terror, lost it, and now is bringing terror home to the American people.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
OBAMA has already put in motion AND END TO BUSH'S WAR CRIMES sm
Bush committed war crimes and Obama on day one of his presidency has already put in place measures to stop the crimes. Be proud because these are issues that affect human rights for all of us.
Read up, do your research, see what Amnesty International says... be PROUD now instead of ashamed to be an American! We are on the road to recovery, albeit a long road but at least Obama has us on track.
Bush's war crimes are being corrected by the Wonderful BARACK!!!
Republicans recoil at the thought of us preserving human rights around the world.
If Bush did not go, you would bash him for that.
nm
Federal Grand Jury Digging Deep into Bush Crimes
PRESIDENT INDICTEDFEDERAL GRAND JURY DIGGING DEEP INTO BUSH CRIMES
By Greg SzymanskiA federal whistleblower close to the Chicago federal grand jury probe into perjury and obstruction charges against President Bush and others said indictments of top officials were handed down this week. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois, however, refused to confirm or deny the source’s account.
“We are not talking about any aspect of this case, and our office is not commenting on anything regarding the investigation at this time,” said Randall Sanborn from the office of U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the attorney conducting the grand jury probe into whether Bush and others in his administration violated federal law in a number of sensitive areas, including leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media.
In December 2003, Fitzgerald was named special counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name to several mainstream columnists, but the present grand jury probe has expanded to include widereaching allegations of criminal activity as new information has surfaced.
Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures, based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
According to whistleblower Tom Heneghen, who recently reported on truthradio.com, Powell testified before the citizen grand jury that Bush had taken the United States to war based on lies, which is a capital crime involving treason under the U.S. Code. “Regarding the Powell testimony, there is no comment,” said Sanborn.
However, sources close to the federal grade jury probe also allegedly told Heneghen a host of administration figures under Bush were indicted, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin. Heneghen, unavailable for comment, also allegedly told sources White House advisor Karl Rove was indicted for perjury in a major document shredding operation cover-up.
In recent weeks, there has been much controversy over Fitzgerald’s wide-reaching probe, which is extending far beyond the Bush administration to include what some have called “a wholesale cleansing” of a crimeladen White House and Congress.
Fitzgerald’s investigation is said to be also centered on members of the 9-11 Commission, members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate and also select high-powered members of the media.
Needless to say, administration officials are “fighting mad” with Fitzgerald. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts is trying to derail Fitzgerald’s probe by calling him to testify before the Senate regarding his true motives behind the investigation.
Political observers are now wondering whether administration-friendly Republican legislators, some under investigation themselves, are conspiring like President Nixon did in Watergate with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an attempt to shield the Bush administration from prosecution.
In late July, reports about the recent bomb scare in the subway under the congressional offices at the Dirksen Building—coincidently near where Fitzgerald was holding his grand jury hearings—raised questions as to whether government operatives were sending the zealous prosecutor a “warning message” that he was entering dangerous waters with his investigation.
The bomb scare was reported to local police late Monday afternoon, July 18, causing the subway to be evacuated for approximately 45 minutes while bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT team members searched for what was reported to be “a suspicious package” left on one of the subway cars.
Fitzgerald began serving as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2001. He was initially appointed on an interim basis by former Attorney General Ashcroft before being nominated by Bush.
The Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent in October 2001. In December 2003, he was named special counsel to investigate the Plame case. Based on the testimony of ABC sources in late July, it appears that at least two close associates of Rove testified before the grand jury. One was Susan Ralston, a longtime associate of Rove and considered to be his right hand.
The other was “Izzy” Hernandez, regarded as Rove’s left hand and now a top official in the Commerce Department.(Issue #33, August 15, 2005)
Don't be so quick to bash Bush.... sm
This is near the bottom of the article I posted. Maybe you just missed it.
"To gain access to the emergency loans, GM and Chrysler must also agree to a wide range of concessions, including limits on executive pay and the elimination of their private corporate jets. "
Everyone put it on Bush's shoulders to do some thing about this and now that he has, still he gets bashed. He's not my favorite president by far, but I think he should be afforded some kind of recognition for doing something to help the economy. As far as pay cuts for the UAW, the article says that they will have to bring their wages more in line with those of foreign auto makers, which is still a danged good salary. Would the UAW rather have a pay check or be completely unemployed? That is pretty much what it all boils down to. I wouldn't particular want to take a pay cut either, but in light of the situation and the current economic picture, I think I would thank my lucky stars that I at least would HAVE a jo
Like the old saying goes "You can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time."
Off  .
They are trying to bash Bush again to distract from
nm
Right, dont every forget to bash Bush.
nm
People love to bash Bush, but one man cant do it
nm
Yeah, it is so easy to bash Bush, but say one little
nm
I know you don't expect an answer. They just bash, bash, bash
You know that though. They just like to bash him, no matter what he does. He could turn out to be Jesus Christ himself and they would still fault him for something!
Bash, rant, bash, rant, bash....
My word can you ever rant. But you don't seem so great at sticking to facts. I read the posts you paraphrased and do not agree with your synopsis. She did not say you were a cliche, among other things....she said you were using a cliche. Superior intellect? Huh? Where'd you get that? She stated she liked western history. Just because someone likes to read doesn't mean they are boasting that they are superior. How silly!!!
Yup, probably a byproduct of his war crimes!
x
they should be prosecuted for war crimes
Are they above the law and above reproach?
And especially used for those who show no remorse for these crimes.
B Clinton was not impeached for sex crimes
To say he was impeached for "sex crimes" does the justice system a dishonor and is completely false. It also implies that he didn't do anything wrong and he was just impeached for having an affair (it tries to make it sound like he did nothing wrong and everyone was after him).
For all those who have forgotten, he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
First there was travelgate, next was Vince Foster being shot then investigators being denied access to Foster's office however Clinton's aides entered within hours after he was shot and documents were removed. Then there was James & Susan McDougal, failed loans, alleged legal activities at Madison Guarantee, Webb Hubbell, Vernon Jordan, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky (which led to his lies) oh yes, and when asked why he had the affair he said "because I could" (not because I love her or even because I care for her or even because she's hot - no, "because I could?"). Then his lies led to Hillary lying and AL Gore lying. Then Bill lying more "That depends on what the meaning of is is", etc, etc. There were 11 impeachable offenses against Bill Clinton. That is Eleven of them. So to just say he was impeached for sex crimes is a false statement and does a disservice to the judicial system. This was one of the worst presidents (imo) and he was disgraced the office of president. Richard Nixon did not even have as many articles to be impeached for. The worst offense however was that he was not removed from office.
"War crimes will be prosecuted"...(sm)
Guess who said that?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30464632
HATE CRIMES BILL......
The Hate Crimes Bill S.909 (HR1913) will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. Now, since so many think that ONLY has to do with "protection" of homosexuals, then you are fooling yourself. It's time you get involved in your country. Now read this carefully and for those that think Obama is such a saint, tell me why he would support this bill..... Please read ALL before you start bashing!! Sad to think our president would approve of such perversion....
Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:
Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals
To protect a "sexual orientation" under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.
Hate crimes bill
I haven't had time to read your link yet but just wanted to interject an opinion from someone effected by the bill. I have seen state level hate crime legislation in action. What I've seen happen is that a capital crime is reduced, basically, to a crime of passion offense and punished as a 2nd degree offense instead of capital murder (big difference between 12-20 and life). For this reason, I've been totally against the hate crimes bill. While gay hysteria exists in crimes against us, I don't think it should be able to be used as a defense in order to get reduced sentences. Friends have tried to explain that the hate crimes bills were created to try to prevent that from happening but I have not seen that. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Probably both. See posts above about hate crimes
//
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.
So glad we have people against hate crimes now
and anyone who thinks they can do as the KKK did years ago will have other repercussions. People are not putting up with that crap anymore- I know you might have some "groups" who talk big but as far as the hate crimes done in the past such as lynchings, beatings, etc. and people afraid to take action and turning their heads- those hateful, terrible things that over ran our country in the past are just that, things of the past.
I haven't reviewed the Hate Crimes bill....... sm
but I believe it is a load of horse manure. Murder, rape, etc., are hateful crimes and should be punished to the full extent of the law regardless of a victim's sexual orientation. A human being is a human being.
However, I believe that this bill pertains to more than just murder. It apparently protects persons with various sexual orientation from being spoken against in any way. A good example would be the thread below concerning gay marriage. Heterosexuals would or could be prosecuted for speaking out against same sex marriage. Preachers could be prosecuted for teaching what the Bible says in church if it speaks against a protected group's characteristics. At least, that is my understanding of the bill.
The fact that Obama is standing, pen in hand, ready to sign this bill speaks volumes about him and his agenda. If passed, I shudder to think what will become of America. Prostitutes on every corner, flashers running loose in the parks where our children play, pedophiles allowed in schools and daycare where young children could fall prey to their lasciviousness.
But, hey, it does also protect heterosexuals! LOL
If you came here to bash
Conservative board.
Never a problem there.
It's a new day. Just say no to bash.
x
Regarding the "O" Bash....
The right wing rag I got my figures from was the IRS:
Progressivity and the Tax Burden
Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one's income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.1
- According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
- The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
- The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% referred to above includes the middle class.
The $6 billion figure came from one of your own posters down in a lower thread...from the tax institute who evaluated O's plan, and the fact that it would add about a trillion (literally) dollars to the deficit. You can scroll down and find it yourself.
Yes, $250,000 in INCOME. That is a small business owner's PAYCHECK. That is what is left after they have paid all their small business operation bills, and he wants to RAISE the taxes on what they have left. It HURTS small businesses. IF they work hard, pay their people, keep their jobs on shore, what do they get for it? After paying whatever business taxes they have to pay, he wants to tax their bottom line AGAIN. In my opinion...that sucks.
Don't have time to run through the whole rant right now. More later.
Get over yourself. If all you can do is bash.....
don't bother posting at all. Sheesh. No wonder people leave this board.
Besides ,we all know that sam is a whole lot more knowledgeable about the entire political process than almost anyone here. Me included, and probably you.
Even though this gal was right about your #8.
poor black men in jail for drug crimes while his wife steals from a medical charity. nm
nm
The moderator said not to bash.
She did not say that people with opposing viewpoints could not post.
The only bash under this thread is
Just can't resist slamming a different perspective, can you? Not even one time is this possible.
This is not a bash, but let me explain
I used to live 20 minutes from the border of Canada, we got a lot of perspective of what the Canadians thought of US.
First, this is not an election about race, but your comments are trying to suggest it is. Nobody in America cares about Obama's race. We care about Obama as a person. What is Obama offering the American people. What is Obama's plans for America. What will he do to our economic and foreign policies. What he wants to turn America into is not good for the country. Of course the people who support him will jump on your bandwagon and congratulate you on the "race" comment because they cannot defend the wrong he has done.
America does not want higher taxes which his plan will certainly increase our taxes. We work 50 and 60 hours or more at work to makes ends meet. Now we're going to have to work 80 hours or more because of the extra tax burdeon we will have to support all his programs while just handing the people who don't pay any taxes more money. Americans don't want our health care industry socialized, which is what his plan will do. We will no longer have control over our own health care.
We don't feel safe from our enemies with Obama's foreign policies. It's taken a lot since 9/11 for some Americans to feel that America is safe (or close to safe) from our enemies. Obama does not have the experience or knowlege of dealing with foreign leaders. A lot of us do not know where or who his allegience stands with. His ties to our enemies is not a very comforting feeling.
I find it funny how a lot of people will support Mr. Obama with his ties to the people who want to see us wiped off the planet, they'd rather see America turned into a socialist country. They'd rather see our freedoms and way of life taken from us. They want the people who work hard for what they have to work harder to give it to those who don't have and who refuse to do anything to better themselves. All for what? So that we can have a black president? That we have a president who is young?
Sure John McCain is not the first choice for a lot of us. We would have rather seen Ron Paul, Mit Romney or any of the others selected, but this is who the republican party chose.
A lot of us are researching what John McCain has done in his political career and what Barack Obama has done in his political career and we are comparing who would be better for America. It has nothing to do with the color (or lack of color) of their skin, it has to do with their character and judgment. It is a very close race and until election day is when we will learn who the people voted for. Here in America the polls do not mean anything. They are just a tool for the media to use to try to influence people, but thankfully most Americans do not vote based on just what polls say, and as we all know what happened with Tom Bradley (better known as the Bradley Effect) we know that polls do not mean anything, and the true results only happen on election day.
For a lot of conservatives we are choosing McCain over Obama because we feel McCain's plans and ideas are better for Americans. He has fought for Americans his whole political career. He has fought with both democrats and republicans on issues he feels are wrong for America.
Obama has too much "bad baggage". Sure he's a good speaker. He should be, after all he's a lawyer. He has had years of experience arguing cases in court rooms, but just because he speaks well, dresses nice, is good looking and had a lovely wife and 2 beautiful little girls does not mean that what he will turn our country into is right for America. Seeing as you have access to most everything on the Net you should visit some independent sites that are neither for or against both candidates and learn more about them, their history, their affiliations, who they studied under, who supports them, who donates to their campaigns. Who are they, what have they done in their careers and what are they trying so desperately to hide.
This campaign is different. We had a women running, Hillary, who now after being defeated are learning that she would have been a lot better for America than what is in there now. As the saying goes if she was elected "at least we know what the devil looks like". I voted for Obama over Hillary, but now I wish I voted the other way.
This election is also different because never in my adult years have I have heard such bias liberal media just trying to tear out the souls of anyone who is not democrat. Issues are in black in white in front of their faces and they choose to ignore them. We have people like Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and others who made a fortune from the housing crisis while they knew it was wrong, yet the democrats will say it was all Bush's fault, when President Bush does not vote on these issues. Sure President Bush is not the most intelligent. As my friend says "He's one fry short of a happy meal", but he didn't vote on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. Congress did. We were lied to by the democrats and this is where it got us. But the liberal media ignores that. Then we have the top democrats (Nancy Pelosi, and a couple others that I forget their name right now- Harry Reid, that's his name and others) who have the authority to impeach President Bush, and there is plenty legitimate and legal reasons for him to be impeached but they are not doing it. So the democrats will whine about Bush and how he should be impeached, but they don't say anything against the democrats for not impeaching him. There are a lot of conservatives who want Bush and Cheney impeached, so you have to ask yourselves why is Pelosi and others not doing it. I, as others believe, Pelosi and the others have done something wrong (accepted money or whatever it is) and they've been told not to do anything or else.
Anyway....yes, this election is different than others. We have one candidate who is a true American hero, who will fight for Americans and has fought for us. He doesn't belong to the "good ol boys" club like Bush/Cheney. Then you have the other candidate Obama who is so deep up to his neck in shady doings, associates, and everything else we are finding out. Also the same people who have donated and are in charge of President Bush are the same exact people who are supporting Obama (makes you think twice about that one).
You said Barack's wife is well spoken and I agree with you there. I also believe McCain's wife is well spoken. She has dedictated her life as a special education teacher and nurse. She has spent her whole life helping others. She is a truly beautiful lady like Michelle Obama on both the inside and out. Two extra-ordinary women who would make fine first ladies.
Obama's campaign is all about change. Yes everyone is tired of Bush/Cheney, and we certainly don't want to go back to the Clinton/Gore years, so people are looking for a change, just not the kind of change Obama wants to make. He also says its time for change but he picks Biden for a running mate. The same Biden who said that Obama was not ready to be President. Clinton also said Obama was not ready to be president. So Obama wants change but he picks a running mate who has been in Washington as long as McCain has. McCain's campaign is about putting America first. Which means fighting for us. We saw his courage and his fight while he was in a POW camp. He fought then and he will fight now. His running mate goes to show us McCain will truly put change into Washington. He picked a qualified person who gives Americans hope that more than only lawyer's can be elected. She has the experience (she has more experience than Obama does) to be elected as a VP. She's a fast learner and has come as far in a few weeks that took Obama almost 2 years to get to.
So, your post did not offend, but you need to know that this election is not about race. It's about ethics, integrety, patriotism, knowlege, courage, and sticking up for the American people. All qualities that John McCain and Sarah Palin hold.
I'm not saying I believe they will win because it is a very close election, but I like many others hope they do win. We want to be able to remain a free country and prosper the way our founding fathers wanted the country to be.
You want solutions? HA!. All you do is bash
nm
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
Other addicted Americans aren't putting people in jail or ripping apart families for drug crimes.
nm
It's not your right to bash her - this is the liberal board
As I said, if you have a problem with liberal ideology being expressed on this board, you need to contact the administrator as she is the one that helped toward having the two boards and requested many times to not bash. Can you understand that?
Please do not bash liberal posters. Thank you. nm
.
Mentally ill....? That is quite a bash, friend...
I was trying to be civil but the gloves are off now. You are so far embroiled into the liberal lockstep you don't even know what civil is, and you have demonstrated your own immaturity by this attack.
*I think you and your friends are playground bullies with maturity of a 5-year-old...*
This from someone who supports a so-called adult who let his johnson run his life...and then commit perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up. Yep, there is a MATURE role model for you and you are following him like the sheeple. Instead of talking about it intelligently (that presupposes you are capable), you whine, snipe, and run.
You are welcome to any opinion you have about the *far right* Republican party, conservatives, et al. I have an opinion about the *far left* (although I believe that the whole party is so far left there is no more *moderate* left, they have been so effectively silenced). I believe that the Democratic party will finish destroying this country if they stay in power. Bill got a good start, and you, like the good sheeple are, follow blindly. The upper crust of your liberal party could not care LESS about you, walked to power on your shoulders, and intend to keep you oppressed and under their thumb to stay in power. The truth is, the far right Republican party cares more about you than they ever will. Not bashing, an opinion!
*You guys don't play fair.* Boy, THAT is rich! Someone disagrees with you or takes a shot at that tin god Clinton you bow to, and you don't want to have an intelligent debate, you just want the naysayers to go away. It is that kind of blinder vision that lets people like Adolf Hitler take hold and suddenly it is all right to kill six million people. You spewed enough venom here to pretty much prove that point. But the bigger point is this one, and if you have one brain cell left that is not liberally indoctrinated, LISTEN. The far right Republican party, and conservatives, are AMERICANS too! For the love of mike, get a grip and take off that liberal hat for 10 seconds and realize, conservatives are people just like you, have families just like you, pay taxes just like you, and whether you LIKE IT OR NOT, have rights just like you. I cannot believe the tone you are taking. Read your own post! Sheesh. You are acting like these people (myself included) are your mortal enemies. What in the world is the MATTER with you??? This is a posting board, not a battlefield. Good grief!!
Lets bash the pastor.
According to dictionary.com, the meanings of the N-word are “deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense.” They go on to say, conversely, “it is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way.” Since he whispered the statement behind what he thought was a cold microphone, it is highly unlikely that Rev. Jackson intended to cause great offense and his use of the word probably falls into the latter category of usage.
For example, the N-word can become much less offensive and even assume neutrality within historical discourse, literature, poetry, cinema theater and the like. One could further argue that within certain contexts (i.e. rap music, conversations within the black households, neighborhoods and businesses, to name a few) connotations of the word can be construed so as to convey a sense of community…even a brotherhood, of sorts. Language is fluid, dynamic and vital in its nature, not static or one-dimensional. Context, message, intent, environment, speaker and audience all impact the ultimate nuance of meaning in all forms of communication.
I agree with you and take deep offense at the use of the N-word, regardless of who says it. However, I would like to comment on some of the other points you raised in your post. A careful read of the actual statement shows that Rev. Jackson did not use this epithet to personally attack Obama. Rather, he was referring to the black population as a whole. Granted, his choice of words was extremely poor (at least from a white perspective), but the statement was not meant for public scrutiny. It was spoken from one black individual to another, much the same was that Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s statements were made from black preacher to black congregation.
As a white person, I do not believe I can sit in judgment one way or another regarding his choice of words when taken completely out of context, in the same way I am not qualified to criticize the sermons of Rev. Wright. I would like to think that I am intelligent enough to understand that, having lived in the US as a white person both before and after the civil right eras (1948 to present), I have not experienced life in America the same way black people have. They are entitled to their own “take” on their own lives. Who am I to tell them how to “tell it like it is?”
One last point. I am sure that much flap and bruhah will ensue over this unfortunate news. However, the very fact that Rev. Sharpton, you, I, the media and countless others will be having this debate over our outrage and dismay is a testament as to just how effective Rev Jackson and other early leaders in the civil rights movement were in defining the key issues, defying status quo of his times, enlisting support for the cause, effectively engaging his opposition in ongoing bipartisan initiatives over nearly 4 decades and producing fruitful, far-reaching and substantial bodies of legislation from which today’s black community continue to reap bountiful benefits and blessings. They weathered storms of protests, incarceration, series after series of setbacks and reversals, and buckets of bloodshed in their efforts to secure the civil liberties and rights that reach far beyond the black community to encompass other forms of discrimination against women, gays, immigrants and the poor, to name a few…all so casually taken for granted and so easily dismissed in the blink of an eye with one ill-chosen, unfortunate slip of the tongue.
For those of us whose memories reach further back than the latest round of CNN sound bytes and chat room chatter, we probably would forgive Obama should he decide not to denounce Rev Jackson’s support, nor would we feel driven to force him to abandon his own pastor of 20 years for the sake of our own righteous indignation.
And managed to bash dems on the way out....
I didn't bash anyone...and I read them all
I think that you are unfairly bashing the poor man. Diagree with his politics--fine--that's what the board is for, but what is with the personal attacks. If you don't like the words he uses, that's okay, but why make a big deal out of it. If he talks over your head, I am sure that he didn't mean to. I don't find what he writes hard to understand. I simply disagree with tons of people attacking him on a personal level--or you for that matter. I did not attack anyone personally, nor would I. I did READ all the posts and did give my comment. I stand by it.
"Bashing"? All you do is bash conservatives,
nm
The first one says, do not bash their posts. It does not say stay off the board.
The second one I did not recall seeing. As I said, go to the conservative board and see what you see. The same thing as here. Stop whining about it and grow up.
This is the liberal board. Please do not bash the posters here. Thank you. nm
\\
I didn't bash her AND STOP SHOUTING AT ME
I didn't bash her. I stated the facts. I was hoping McCain would pick someone who would help him win. He needs all the help he can get right now, but no, he goes and picks her! I would have liked to see Mit Romney or Duncan or Ron Paul or any of the other candidates that were up there and I would have voted for him had he picked one of them. Tons of people were supporting and voting for them - especially Romney and Paul, but he goes and picks a nobody with no experience. That's right none! Not a bash - fact! If we have a President in there with the age and health problems McCain does I need to be confident that the VP can step in. She cannot! That is just fact. The only reason I can see why is she is a woman. That just really stinks big time! If the republicans have any hope of remaining in the white house he has got to make some smart decisions. That was not one of them. I did not bash her. I stated the facts. If anything what I said was against McCain. I believe he picked her for only two reasons. One she is a woman and two there will not be anyone there to question his judgement on issues and tell him no, your wrong about this or that. And for pete's sake stop shouting at me! Take your frustrations elsewhere.
We're the peace party, but will bash with the best
nm
What issues? Your only issue is bash Republicans...
and one poster on an anonymous board. Check your intolerance at the door, raise a real issue, and allow everyone their say. Try to actually BE democratic. What a concept.
|
