Yes, you skirted the issue. He DID commit a crime.
Posted By: Observer on 2006-10-05
In Reply to: On the same token...sm - Democrat
Yep, we agree to disgree. Him lying under oath was totally on HIM, and THAT is the real issue. He could have told the truth at any time and avoided the impeachment hearings and the whole thing. He could have taken the wind out of any investigation, if he had just told the truth. It would have gone away. If sex with a 21-year-old girl in the White House where he and his wife and daughter lived was no big deal, why did he just not own up to it? Because he is a coward and morally bankrupt would be my guess. For whatever reason, he chose not to. No one twisted his arm behind his back and made him perjure himself. He did that all by his lonesome. While I find what he did with Monica Lewinsky tasteless at a minimum, and stupid at a maximum, that is not the most objectionable thing I find about him. The fact that he committed a felony, something you or I would go to jail for and there are people in jail for today...sorry, you defend him if you like, and continue to give him a pass. That is the part of the value system, his and his party's, that baffles me.
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
I was not trying to commit
political genocide. I am just sick and tired of the same old rhetoric from you. It would be nice if people would hold both political parties accountable instead of turning a blind eye when it comes to their own party. I'm tired of both the liberal loons and the right-wing nut jobs.
If you are going to complain about Bush's spending, you have to acknowledges Obama's spending. If you are going to complain about the war in Iraq, acknowledge that Obama is still going to leave troops over there and isn't pulling out like he promised and now he is putting more troops in Afghan.
If you are going to complain about pork barrel spending, you need to acknowledge that Obama said he would not sign any bill with pork in it only to turn around and sign it anyway.
If you are going to complain about crooked pubs in politics, you need to acknowledge all the crooked dems as well because there are plenty.
But all we hear from you is that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread and Bush is to blame for everything. It just really gets old.
None of the top tier of Democratic candidates will commit...
to having the troops out of Iraq during their 4 years. I know some of you have posted that you would not vote for Hillary for that reason. What if she is the candidate? Second question...if none of them are going to end the war immediately and that seems to be a major issue for most of you...I assume you are going to vote for one of them anyway...whichever one gets the nomination?
No issue is no issue. Denying that
nm
Gun ban in UK - crime went up...
nm
I never said that he committed a crime...
nor did I ever say I found him personally offensive. I do not believe that he will make a good president because I disagree with his stance on most of the issues that I find important. I also believe that he made a lot of promises that he can never keep because he does not have that power. Personally, I am not all that into the birth certificate thing because I think he probably is a natural born citizen. I find it hard to believe that he would have made it this far were he not. Why is it okay for people to dislike Bush, but I MUST like Obama?
Please explain that crime
nm
Of course! O prevents crime
On the other hand, if there had been MORE crime, it would have been blamed on Bush, or possibly Palin.
potentially a crime?
13 firms receiving federal bailout owe back taxes
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – 59 mins ago
States Attorney General Eric Holder, left, shares a moment with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., prior …
WASHINGTON – At least 13 firms receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a key lawmaker said Thursday.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two firms owe more than $100 million apiece.
"This is shameful. It is a disgrace," said Lewis. "We are going to get to the bottom of what is going on here."
The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the unpaid taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the firms receiving the most money, Lewis said as he opened a hearing on the issue.
The committee said it could not legally release the names of the companies owing taxes. It said one recipient had almost $113 million in unpaid federal income taxes from 2005 and 2006. A second recipient owed almost $102 million dating to before 2004. Another was behind $1.1 million in federal income taxes and $223,000 in federal employment taxes.
"If we looked at all 470 recipients, how much would they owe?" Lewis asked.
Lewis said the panel plans to review tax records from other firms receiving federal money, but he was unsure if it would look at every firm.
"We're not done," he said.
Banks and other firms receiving federal money were required to sign contracts stating they had no unpaid taxes, Lewis said. But he said the Treasury Department did not ask them to turn over their tax records.
Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, told the hearing that if an executive signed a contract knowing that information about unpaid taxes was false, "that would potentially be a crime." He said his office will look to see if crimes were committed.
No one from the Treasury Department appeared at Thursday's hearing. Lewis said he asked Treasury officials for a private briefing on their efforts to uncover unpaid taxes, as well as someone to testify at Thursday's hearing.
"They said no one was available," Lewis said in an interview.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is already under fire on Capitol Hill for not preventing $165 million in bonuses from being paid to employees at troubled insurance giant AIG.
People will ask, said Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., why there are "large companies getting taxpayer dollars, making false representations, and we can't even name them, much less make them pay the money back, much less prosecute them."
Davis continued: "Will they get their day on a billboard, hopefully?"
"Absolutely," said Barofsky. If someone lied, he said, "They need to be prosecuted."
The revelation is sure to spark outrage on Capitol Hill, where the House is expected to vote Thursday on a bill that would impose steep taxes on employee bonuses at AIG and other firms that have received bailout money.
To date, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, has paid out more than $300 billion to private companies, with billions more on the way.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!
x
But it's never a hate crime....
....when a black person attacks a white person? Believe me, there are people of every race who hate one race or another for some stupid reason. Don't quote me on this but I think the Chinese are embarrassed and angered if mistaken for Koreans.
We are all God's people. It's a shame.
Obama will be a one termer, not because of an assassination, because in under six months he's managed to anger many folks including the Jews and gays. Broken promises and lies. People believed he would pay their mortgages and gas. Unbelievable. Obama voters are getting their wakeup call. Wow. Even I thought it would take longer than this.
Guess Who's Soft on Crime...sm
Guess Who's Soft on Crime
Our system of “justice” has descended so far into routine thuggishness that even the blogosphere seems to have let this horror pass unnoticed. Sure, it’s only Texas, but still …
A crooked cop named Tom Coleman was hired in 1998 to conduct a drug investigation in Tulia, Texas, which he did by inventing evidence against 39 innocent men and women, almost all black. Most of the victims were jailed on the sole basis of Coleman’s lies, for terms ranging up to 90 years. When this vicious scheme finally fell apart, the governor pardoned 33 of Coleman’s victims, who won a settlement of $6 million. The badge-carrying perp was tried and convicted for perjury, a crime carrying a maximum sentence of ten years in Texas. A judge called him “the most devious, nonresponsive law enforcement witness this court has witnessed in 25 years on the bench in Texas.” Which, in Texas, we may presume is going some.
So a jury of twelve good men and true — none of them black — found this vicious, corrupt rogue cop guilty of what one judge had called “blatant perjury.” And the jurors threw the book at him, recommending seven whole years on probation. This sounded about right to the trial judge, who is expected to slap Coleman’s wrist really, really hard at the sentencing Tuesday.
She's committing a federal crime
Nofify the Federal Marshalls and they'll bust her. I lived down the street from a girl doing that and she went to federal prison!
Rigging Elections is a Crime
The McCain/Palin GOP is already in the process of stealing the Ohio vote, as was done in 2004. Among those at the center of the GOP strategy is Bush Family computer operative Michael Connell, who programmed the key vote counting mechanisms that were used to give George W. Bush his second term.
ttp://www.truthout.org/article/ten-ways-gop-is-now-stealing-ohio-vote
You see crime being a result of economy, but I see
Oh well don't you know it's not a hate crime when it's against a woman
Only race, religion, etc. No, not a hate crime when it's against a woman... unbelievably, but that's the country we live in. And it's the same reason everything went down the way it did in the primaries, and now in this election.
Do you also blame victims of crime and
inciting the crimes perpetrated against them. Yours is truly an ignorant, ignorant statement.
OMG. Fine...go look at the crime statistics.
nm
Like someone else asked, BB, explain the crime
nm
Oh, c'mon... the low crime was not only related to - s/msg
the HUGE police/secret service presence that was obviously there, but mainly to the mood. It's the first good news that everyday people in the US have had in a long, long time. It was just one day out of many, where people enjoyed the moment, the hope, the inauguration itself, the promise of the new administration, and a feel-good moment. We all know the glow won't last forever, but why not bask in it and enjoy a great moment in history. Even if you voted for the other candidate, you still have to admit that it was a truly great day for African Americans and ALL Americans to see democracy work right for a change, instead of being fixed and rigged. It was truly a magical day that many in this country, Repub or Dem, will remember for a lifetime.
Why did the Kennedy's have ties to organized crime?
Why was the Texas Democratic party of Lyndon Johnson horribly corrupt?
Why was Lyndon Johnson's election to the senate in 1948 won by massive voter fraud?
Why did Lyndon Johnson insert language into the IRS code in 1954 that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, this thoroughly corrupt man used the power of the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Why? His disservice to religious freedom has yet to be undone. Why?
How did Kennedy defeat Nixon in Illinois?
Just rhetorical questions.
Dual citizenship is not a crime. It's a privilege.
Repeat one GOOD reason?
Agreed. It's abuse of power AND a crime
nm
Did everyone see the post below about the UK's gun ban and crime rate rising? sm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
Use of gun-related crime increased 40% during the gun ban and smuggling of guns was rampant, along with people turning every possible object into a gun. Not the answer obviously.
those boys were not charged with a racist crime -
they were charged with burglary, disorderly conduct, and theft.
According to what I read, they cannot be charged with a hate crime because Obama is a political figure and therefore it would be considered a "free speech" issue and not a hate crime. If he were an everyday citizen, then he could be charged with a hate crime.
Either way, for Palin and Obama, it was repulsive to me!
I must be misreading the Hate Crime Bill
Nothing I've read says that any of the things that are crimes now (such as pedophilia) will be considered any less of a crime...pedophilia is still an arrestable offense. My interpretation of what I've read is that the only thing this bill does is expand the group of people who it is okay to assault/kill simply based on their lifestyle changes. In other words, you can't kill someone just because they're gay, Buddhist, Belgian, short, or ugly. It doesn't decriminalize any behavior to my reading. That concept seems to be a figment of somebody's imagination, and much like the game of telephone we played as small children, the actual facts of the bill have gotten more twisted with each telling.
A hate crime occurs at least once every hour in the
Wasn't this predicted recently?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gvUetkOxJwgY0GbCxg1_f75A1CqA
It's not a crime to state your religious views in public.
We don't have to keep it in our homes or our churches. Freedom of religion covers that too!
I can't bring myself to conclude that Bush had a hand in the crime...sm
I think his office new an attack was coming and did not inform the public.
There are also some very interesting findings such as the insurance policy taken out on the WTC with a terrorism provision only a few weeks before the attack. There were other actions that were taken by our government in the months preceeding the attacks that do not add up to it being a surprise attack.
We'll discuss that crime when Bush et al are done with their trial.
nm
New Mexico, Arizona Declare Border Emergencies to Fight Crime
What a shame that these two governors had to declare states of emergency simply because we have at president who knows that this problem exists but just doesn’t care enough about preventing another 9/11 to do anything about it.
From: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=akXph_LySDzs&refer=latin_america#
New Mexico, Arizona Declare Border Emergencies to Fight Crime
Aug. 17 (Bloomberg) -- New Mexico and Arizona governors declared states of emergency for their borders with Mexico, pledging to increase funding to stop the rise in drug smuggling and violence by illegal immigrants.
New Mexico's Bill Richardson and Arizona's Janet Napolitano blamed a lack of money from the federal government that has left the borders and their residents unprotected by U.S. patrols.
``Governor Richardson was asked to take this action by local law enforcement and ranch families.'' Billy Sparks, Richardson's chief of staff, said in a phone interview today.
The declarations were made Friday by Richardson, 47, and yesterday by Napolitano, 47. Richardson, who has been named a possible 2008 presidential candidate, said in a press release there has been ``total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government.''
The escalation in violence during the past month, including gunshots fired at Columbus, New Mexico, police chief Clare May, the attempted kidnapping of three girls and the deaths of 100 cattle along New Mexico's 180-mile border with Mexico prompted Richardson to declare the emergency, Sparks said.
The declaration makes $750,000 of state funding available in affected counties. Richardson pledged to make an additional $1 million available. The money will be used to increase local law enforcement, open a new homeland security office in the border region and help build a fence to protect livestock near Columbus.
Fences, Neighbors
Unlike some border areas in the U.S., landowners in New Mexico maintain their own fences to keep illegal immigrants off their property. In one case a landowner's entire fence was stolen, Sparks said. The U.S. Border Patrol has 109 workers for 200 miles from El Paso, Texas, across New Mexico to Arizona, said Sparks. That is expected to increase by 75 in October.
Napolitano's order makes $1.5 million available to fight crime along the border, according to her press release.
``I intend to take every action feasible to stem the tide of criminal behavior on the Arizona side of the border,'' she said.
The number of unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. each year rose to more than 700,000 in 2004 from 140,000 in the 1980s, according to the Arizona declaration.
Questions about the security of the U.S. border with Mexico have risen since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as officials have tried to limit movement into the U.S. of potential terrorists along with the illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. Immigration restrictions have forced more illegal crossings over landowner- built fences in Arizona and New Mexico.
The border emergency declarations were reported earlier today by the New York Times.
Numbers Jump
So far in the fiscal year that began in October, agents in the Yuma, Arizona, sector of the U.S. border patrol have captured 122,344 illegal immigrants, said Michael Gramley, spokesman for the sector. The previous record was 108,000 in 2000. The Yuma sector covers 126 miles of border in Arizona and California.
``We're taking greater strides toward reaching a higher level of border security,'' said Gramley, in a phone interview. ``The border patrol values any assistance that we receive from state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies.''
Federal officials said they have been making progress in increasing border security.
``Extraordinary progress has been made over the last couple of years as far as strengthening our borders,'' said Jarrod Agen, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. He declined to comment on the state of emergency in Arizona and New Mexico. ``It's the authority of the governors there.''
Both governors called on authorities in Mexico to increase security on their sides of the border, the press releases said.
Mexico's Response
Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement yesterday that it had agreed after meeting with Napolitano to support her actions and work to reduce crime on its side of the border. The ministry blamed organized crime for the border problems.
``On that side and on this side there's organized crime,'' Mexican President Vicente Fox said in an interview with reporters during a visit to the northern border state of Sonora yesterday. ``On that side and this side there's drug consumption. The question is how do all the drugs that cross over there reach the consumer markets? What's being done on that side?''
Texas Governor Rick Perry, 55 doesn't plan to declare an emergency because he believes protecting the U.S. border is the federal government's responsibility, said Robert Black, Perry's spokesman, in a phone interview. Texas's 1,200-mile border with Mexico is the longest of any U.S. state with a foreign country.
``The governor had said that you can't have homeland security without the federal government,'' said Black. ``The feds can't avoid their responsibility to the states.'' To contact the reporter on this story:
Darrell Preston in Dallas at dpreston@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: August 17, 2005 14:52 EDT
Obama is letting them drop charges against terrorists for this horrible sick crime???
What orifice did you pull this out of?
*Compassionate Conservative* Bill Bennett: Abort every black baby, reduce crime.
William Bennett Defends Comment on Abortion and Crime
'Book of Virtues' Author Says Hypothetical Remark Was Valid
By JAKE TAPPER
- After pondering on his radio program how aborting every black infant in America would affect crime rates, best-selling author and self-styled Values Czar Bill Bennett is vehemently denying he is a racist and defending his willingness to speak publicly about race and crime.
On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America, syndicated by Salem Radio Network, a caller raised the theory that Social Security is in danger of becoming insolvent because legalized abortion has reduced the number of tax-paying citizens. Bennett said economic arguments should never be employed in discussions of moral issues.
If it were your sole purpose to reduce crime, Bennett said, You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.
That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down, he added.
Outrage From Democrats
Bennett was secretary of education for President Ronald Reagan and is considered one of the Republican Party's big brains. But this week Democrats and some Republicans seemed to also question if Bennett's mouth is of size as well.
Democrats expressed outrage, ranging from demands for an apology to requests that the Federal Communications Commission suspend Bennett's show.
Republicans, Democrats and all Americans of good will should denounce this statement, should distance themselves from Mr. Bennett, said Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill. And the private sector should not support Mr. Bennett's radio show or his comments on the air.
I'm not even going to comment on something that disgusting, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Really, I'm thinking of my black grandchild and I'm going to hold (off).
'Things That People Are Thinking'
In an interview with ABC News, Bennett said that anyone who knows him knows he isn't racist. He said he was merely extrapolating from the best-selling book Freakonomics, which posits the hypothesis that falling crimes rates are related to increased abortion rates decades ago. It would have worked for, you know, single-parent moms; it would have worked for male babies, black babies, Bennett said. So why immediately bring up race when discussing crime rates? There was a lot of discussion about race and crime in New Orleans, Bennett said. There was discussion – a lot of it wrong – but nevertheless, media jumping on stories about looting and shooting and gangs and roving gangs and so on.
There's no question this is on our minds, Bennett said. What I do on our show is talk about things that people are thinking … we don't hesitate to talk about things that are touchy.
Bennett said, I'm sorry if people are hurt, I really am. But we can't say this is an area of American life (and) public policy that we're not allowed to talk about – race and crime.
Robert George, an African-American, Republican editorial writer for the New York Post, agrees that Bennett's comments were not meant as racist. But he worries they feed into stereotypes of Republicans as insensitive. His overall point about not making broad sociological claims and so forth, that was a legitimate point, George said. But it seems to me someone with Bennett's intelligence … should know better the impact of his words and sort of thinking these things through before he speaks.
The blunt-spoken Bennett has ruffled feathers before, most recently in 2003 for revelations that despite his best-selling books about virtue and values, he is a high-rolling preferred customer at Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos.
In light of accusations that the Bush administration should have been more sensitive to black victims of Hurricane Katrina, a Republican official told ABC News that Bennett's comments were probably as poorly timed as they were politically incorrect.
ABC News' Avery Miller, Karen Travers and Toni L. Wilson contributed to this report.
There is no issue here.
0
What was the issue again?
nm
For it - should not be an issue
It should not be an issue period. It does not affect me (or anyone else) if Joe & John or Mary & Sara want to get married. As human beings we all have that right.
Civil Union is not the same thing. Talk about discrimination big time. Yes, you love each other but sorry, your of the wrong sex?????
What's next you can only be white to be married or a black and white, hispanic and black or any other combination won't be able to marry.
This is one more issue that should not be political. People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to and tell everyone else to mind their own business.
this is not a big issue
Your point of view has been expressed. Constant repetition only weakens your case. If you felt strongly that this was true, you would be confident that you would be proved right and not have to beat a dead horse. Be a member of polite society and consider others' time and interests before you attempt to monopolize a free forum with only your one point over and over.
This is a big issue to some of us...
and we are not just repeating ourselves. We are posting new info for others WHO CARE to read it. If you are not interested and do not care, DON'T READ IT.
Interesting post by someone on another site:
ladyplumber10:35AMDec 3rd 2008
When you have 4 different citizenships in question, American, British, Indonesian, and Kenyan, and multiple different names :Barack Obama, aka, Barry Soreto, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham...you folks who think this is a piece of cake to wade through are nuts. It's like untangling a badly knotted necklace.
There is a great interview with Alan Keyes on why he is suing Mr Obama in the CA Sumpreme Court in Essence magazine...
http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/alankeyesobama
also it is known that Mr Obama's passport in 1981 at the age of 20 was Indonesian. Ever wonder WHY he has sealed all of his college records @ Columbia and Harvard...likely because he came in under Indonesian
citizenship and qulaified for foreign student grants.
For those of you who think that the certificate shown on his web site is sufficient:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931
PART 1
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's LONG LEGAL original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."
(From Alan Keyes suite against the Sec of State of CA and demanding they hold back the 55 electoral votes)
For those of you who think that even if he was born to an American overseas..he is still a US Citizen...
NOT SO. for the law from 1952-1986 (Obama was born in 1961) states that to an American Citizen and one alien parent in wedlock, the American parent must have resided in the US for 5 years beyond the age of 14 (or the age of 19)Mr Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, so he wouldn't qualify.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
For those of you who think that he has to have been checked out this far into the game...think again. I met with my DC House REP face to face who said that officials voted into office by the public, don't get checked out...my own rep never had been nor do US senators. The FBI doesn't get involved in political matters, and there is NO PRIOR legal precedent for a prez candidate that wants to keep his life "private". Remember Hillary was the first to challenge his citizenship...but took his short cert of live birth as his long legal birth certificate. This document is not offical enough to get him a passport. So whose job is it to approve a candidate...the candidates own party according to the FBI agent that I interviewed...can you say conflict of interest?! It is also the job of each individual sec of state. Personally, for the prez national election, I think it should be the job of the US Sec of State. Each state sec of state can certify state candidates. FOLKS-this has not resurfaced...it has never left.. but the Obama loving main stream media won't cover it, because they will wind up with egg all over their face. I think a few things are cool: one, that Alan Keyes is the one in CA suing, but no one can call the race card as he is black. Justice Clarence Thomas took the supreme court case, and again no one can call a race card. My DC rep feels that every court in the nation will find a loop hole to dismiss for fear of rioting. I told him that men are fighting and dying overseas to protect our freedoms and our constitution..why should they if we won't protect it from within? Also if the courts were afraid of rioting in the 1950s&1960s SEGREGATION might still be alive today! I would love to see a black man as prez, but not one who had to speak deceit and lies to get there. Let's NOT be in such a hurry to make history, that we are doing nothing to protect history...and to protect our constitution....
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/197#comments
That's not the issue and you know it.
Constitution baby, constitution!
Well, now that's another issue...(sm)
I would argue that the New Deal actually did help the economy, but it wasn't large enough. During the New Deal the GDP steadily grew with the exception of one period where FDR actually slacked off with his programs and instead did tax cuts. Unemployment also went down during this period. I know Fox is saying the New Deal didn't work, but the numbers don't support that theory.
See charts below:
EXACTLY!! This isn't a pub/dem issue.........
this is a BIG GOVERNMENT issue. The kind of government that thinks they own the citizens. Of course, Obama's spend spend spend plan is the most outrageous in U.S. history and that's an understatement, but both sides should be ashamed of themselves. I get so sick of seeing the democrats on this board sit idly by as if they are in the right and just point fingers at anyone they perceive as republicans. They forget.......WE ARE THE CITIZENS. I don't give a rat's butt WHO is in office.....NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE MY MONEY AND TAX THE CRAP OUT OF ITS CITIZENS. The government works for us but unfortunately too many in this country have become ignorant to that fact, either by choice or lack of proper education as to their history, constitution, and what that entails of its citizens. They feels no loyalty to this country and do not understand the government is not there to be their leader and caregiver. The government is supposed to work for us and us only, not the United Nations, not some stupid foreign country who has us in their pocket, the Americans of this country....... NOT ILLEGALS EITHER!
We have gotten so far away from the meaning of our constitution; it's not taught in our schools....should we be surprised. After all,our schools are bought and paid for by the government you pay for without any say in the school system, and a bunch of one-sided thinking lamebrains decide the curriculum, so what better than to destroy the constitution so the children never understand anything about loyalty or pride for their country. Instead, they grow up thinking their government is the be all and end all of their lives and without that, we would be nobodies. PLEEZE!!!!
For all those that continue to point at Bush.....HE'S GONE FOLKS!! GET OVER IT! NOW YOU CAN START POINTING FINGERS AT OBAMA!! He's spending and making fake money as fast as he can light up another cigarette.
Obama has no excuse for this disaster he is putting us in.
The reason the majority do not speak up against their tyranical government is because they have become so complacent and when you think about all those who stand or think they stand to come out ahead with this government, they have no problem with sitting back and letting it happen. The day we stop letting illegals vote and special interest groups run this country, we might actually get our country back but that's won't happen until our complacent LEGAL citizens get off their duffs and actually stand up for their country.
Most don't even care and that's what the government is betting on......everyone's lack of education (government schools!) or interest.
The issue is
that men shouldn't be marrying men and women shouldn't be marrying women. The parts don't fit together and it's immoral. Giving them that special "right" will take away the rights of those who believe this behavior is immoral and the right to say so. They should have NEVER been given such a ludicrous "right." And the religious community will keep fighting to right wrongs. :-)
The Rove issue
From the Christian Science monitor online-- an interesting commentary on the Rove issue.
(I note per the Conservative board that Mr. Wilson is now being vilified.)
|
from the July 15, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p09s02-cods.html
Rove leak is just part of larger scandalBy Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.
In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."
Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.
No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.
One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.
The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
• Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio. |
Why won't you debate the issue
because you can't back up what you are saying, I assume. You just point fingers and call names like that's winning a debate.
It is really a much larger issue than you think. sm
There are 12,000 New York City resident signatures, as well as 15 NY legislators on this petion alone:
Preamble to the Complaint and Petition
We, the complainant signatories below, petition the Attorney General of New York, on behalf of millions of New Yorkers who also call for a fearless independent inquiry; for the sake of residents, workers, and business owners in New York—most particularly in and near Ground Zero; and also on behalf of other Americans who have lost employees, friends, and family members as well as health, business, and personal assets and civil, privacy, and other rights in the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.
We approach your office as concerned citizens desiring to bring to light the truth about the events of 9/11. And where fault and liability may be found through your investigative action (by whatever means), we seek the recovery of billions of dollars of damages that have been sustained and continue to accrue, and a process by which the true perpetrators and aiders and abettors of the 9/11 attacks may speedily be brought to justice.
As we reported previously to your office, a representative poll published by Zogby International on August 30 of this year found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New Yorkers overall believe there was official foreknowledge and conscious acceptance of the 9/11 attacks, and that 66 percent of city residents and 56 percent overall want a new investigation. These findings are stunning and we believe they provide conclusive evidence that the people of New York are not satisfied that official investigations and mainstream news media have adequately addressed the truth of the events of that fateful day.
These Zogby Poll findings point to the immediate consituency for our Complaint and Petition; but we also note here that a burgeoning nationwide movement also holds to the same belief about 9/11 as do these native New Yorkers. Fifteen legislators who are members from New York in the US House of Representatives, New York State Senate and Assembly, and New York City Council have responded to these results by also expressing support for a new investigation by the Attorney General or Congress.
If this belief of millions of citizens is borne out by a legitimate investigation, then it may follow that the responsible officials are guilty of both mass murder and treason, as well as conspiring to inflict untold suffering upon the people of New York and violating a host of New York State laws, in addition to federal terrorist, treason, and other laws.
Clearly, this Complaint and Petition concerns a supremely serious matter. Yet we the complainants contend that no independent official investigation into these alarming yet plausible allegations, for which we present compelling evidence herein, has ever been held or is now contemplated.
When citizens of New York widely suspect appalling criminal activity within our government and by bad actors doing business in the State of New York—activity that has caused us grievous harm—we believe we are well within our rights as sovereign citizens to demand the legal and investigative means to address these concerns. If indeed there exists such a widespread belief that our own government intentionally allowed such a catastrophe to occur on our own shores, then we submit that this is prima facie evidence of a deep crisis of trust in government. We were therefore inspired to read the Attorney General‘s 2002 Law Day address in regard to this issue of restoring public trust in our institutions. You focused then on financial markets, charities, and churches, but we believe your words aptly address the collapse of faith in government that the 9/11 Zogby Poll reveals today:
It is important that we understand that this crisis exists, that it has already damaged important institutions, and that we must take immediate action to restore the faith of a betrayed public…The process of restoring a shattered trust is a lengthy one. Unfortunately, we do not have time to wait…Too much will be lost during the time that this process naturally unfolds; the skepticism and distrust that exists will continue to exact a tremendous cost…Our system of law can provide—indeed, can itself be—the solution to the crisis created by the betrayal of their trust. [2]
And it is precisely in this same spirit—that of invoking the legitimacy of a lawful solution to the issue of 9/11—that we request your intervention in order to swiftly address the grave concerns outlined below, enforce accountability, and restore the public trust.
As Attorney General, you hold ultimate responsibility for enforcing public safety, criminal, and investor protection laws in the State of New York. As indicated in the Zogby Poll, a clear majority of your constituents desires a full investigation of still unanswered questions either by Congress or your office. We provide herein evidence to prove that Congress and the 9/11 Commission have shown themselves incapable of such an inquiry. We are left with no alternative but to turn to you to take up the case we have put forth in this Complaint and Petition.
We therefore respectfully request that you immediately invoke your powers to open one or more urgent investigations into apparent crimes before, during, and after September 11, 2001. This could be accomplished by your office alone or in conjunction with other state and local legal and enforcement offices with jurisdiction (which might include, for example, other state attorneys general and the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau).
We firmly believe that we are able to show probable cause for convening a grand jury and that we present herein the necessary facts and lines of inquiry that would lead reasonable persons to believe that numerous still-unsolved crimes have taken place.
In this Complaint and Petition, we submit compelling evidence constituting probable cause that some or all of the following crimes and possible additional crimes have been committed and that you have jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes: murder, criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter; assault; reckless endangerment; official misconduct; criminal offenses relating to public safety; enterprise corruption; obstruction of justice and the infliction of emotional distress, including causing untold suffering and billions of dollars in damages on the citizens, businesses, and institutions of and upon the State of New York itself and cities, counties, and other jurisdictions within New York; and the criminal facilitation or solicitation thereof and conspiracy or accessorial conduct in connection therewith.
In summary, we submit that available evidence demonstrates that the requisite state of mind exists, pointing to (1) negligence as would be appropriate for assigning civil liability, and (2) an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as would be required for assigning criminal liability.
You are making it an issue
You are trying to defend Merv Griffin when no one said anything bad about him or that he was not a conservative. All that was stated was what he commented about the vote, nothing more or less. You are reading much more into it than I ever intended. Dont waste your time looking up more information about Merv, who cares? His comment is what his comment was. Goodness, LOL. Dustin Hoffman also made a comment on Letterman that the democrats taking over the House and Senate was a historic day. It was a comment nothing more. I must state, though, that the audience also clapped, whistled, cheered when Dustin said that.
We will never agree on this issue.
I think all children deserve free or at least affordable health care right now. I think that should be this country's #1 priority, and sadly, it is not. I don't care what facts you throw at me, the truth is many children are going without health insurance because many families have to choose between buying groceries and paying the enormous premiums, and sometimes you just have to choose what is most important to survive right now.
I'm disgusted every time someone has to have a fundraiser when their kid gets cancer just to pay the medical bills. I'm disgusted that families lose their houses every day because they have to sell them to pay off medical bills. This bill may not have solved all of those problems, but it would have been a step in the right direction.
So go ahead and spout your pro-life "every baby deserves a chance to live" speeches, and then when that same child gets diabetes and can't afford healthcare, go ahead and look away and act like that child no longer matters.
Why is gay marriage an issue?
Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics? I don't think it's ever been explained. I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that. On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too. I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue. To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact). So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns. - Thanks.
You are the one making an issue (sm)
out of his middle name. So what if someone posts his middle name? What do YOU have to be worried about? It appears that she cut and pasted an article written by someone else. Had you not written a huge post about the name *Hussein,* many would not have even given it a second thought.
It would not be an issue if he had not made it one. nm
nm
Experience issue will not go away soon.
Whether or not a candidate is "ready" to lead is the voter's prerogative to investigate...or not. I hate nasty politics too and often will turn a blind eye to it. On the other hand, checking into it from time to time does give one a better perspective on just how divided our country has become and what issues flames the fires of discontent the most. Voters also decide whether malcontents should be left to stew in their own juices or if they are addressing legitimate, common concerns in an inappropriate manner that require attention from our highest leadership.
Beyond that, judgments must be made as to which candidate, party, issues, policies, etc. best represent not only the individual's best interests and their vision of what America is or is not, but also the best interest of the nation as a whole...another purely subjective and biased concept, depending on who you talk to. It's the nature of the beast.
What I believe about research is that it is much more valuable as a process, rather than a final destination. If one is able to come out of their comfort zone and expose themselves to many sides of the same issue, it is their own reactions and gut instincts that will help them better identify, define, prioritize, express and embody their own personal political beliefs. If the objective of research is a drive-by pot shot, the insight gained will be as fleeting and as memorable as chat room archives.
I see you did not issue the same warning for ...
BDayes...but then, why would you? Hitch up your skirt, your double standard is showing.
|
