Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

You have to excuse them, after Bill and Hill, scandal is just part

Posted By: of normalcy for them. nm on 2005-09-29
In Reply to: Mostly accusations - Rep

x


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 agree with you. Bill and Hill think that
if they break it, they can fix it.  They're up to something.  Cannot trust either of them, and even though I am a staunch Democrat, I will not vote for her/him.  My opinion is that the country's only hope is in Obama, whether you like him or not.  He impressed me because he spoke out against the war when it was not politically correct, when people were said to be "unpatriotic" if they disagreed with the shrub.  Have been paying very close attention to the primaries, caucuses, etc. since before Christmas.  Please, no more Clintons, no more Bushes.  Maybe Hillary will crash and burn. 
There is a reason that Bill and Hill aren't...
out there strongly for Obama. They ARE for the party, but not him particularly. If Hillary was invested in this, she would be going all over the country stumping. She's not. Bill was saying nothing but positive things on Greta Van Susteren's show. Hillary is fixed on 2012...and the only way she runs for Prez then is if Obama loses. If he wins, it might be 8 years. Neither one are going to stray from the party line, but they certainly aren't in the ranks of "ardent" Obama supporters.

I personally think if Obama were to think about ditching Biden (and I really don't think he is) and asked Hillary about it, I think she would tell him in no uncertain terms to take a hike. We would never know that publically of course...I think he knows he messed in his nest with the Clintons. I can't see him going there, and I certainly can't see Michelle and Hillary rubbing elbows for 4 years...lol. But, like you, I could be wrong....stranger things have happened. lol.
um...you're thinking of Bill and Hill, walking out of the white house with everything
That was a fact, overlooked by most libs.
Excuse me. You must have missed the part about
For starters, Obama did not dismiss these charges, Susan Crawford, described as a TOP LEGAL AUTHORITY for military trials did. Obama orders were to simply FREEZE the court proceedings (hello) PENDING the results of ongoing reviews of Gitmo operations.

Crawford's dedcision seems perfectly appropriate to me since dismissing the charges (ahem) WITHOUT PREJUDICE means he can be charged again once the results of the reviews are in, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that Abd Al-Rahim will remain in custody.

You are the one who needs to clean up your potty mouth and pay attention. Of course, that's assuming that you even read the article at all instead of simply reacting to a headline or lifting somebody else's diatribe off another wingnut site.
Excuse me, did you miss the part where Obama
said out of his own lips that he would close Gitmo?
This should come as no surprise.... Obama has wanted to shut this down from the start and will do so completely! This is just a starting point. If you don't like the words, then stop listening to Obama 'cause he has yammered on and on about how ALL us American citizens want this package. REALLY? Strange,seeming how the white house switchboard is overwhelmed with calls saying NO to this package!!!


I read that as righteous indignation on Bill's part.


Bill Clinton gets part of the blame == refused to take out bin Laden...sm
when he had the chance.



AIG Scandal



by: Eliot Spitzer  |  Visit article original @ Slate Magazine


Former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (pictured), then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made the initial decision to bail out AIG. (Photo: Elizabeth Dalziel / AP)



    It's not the bonuses. It's that AIG's counterparties are getting paid back in full.

    Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?

    For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.


SURPRISE! huh?       http://www.truthout.org/031809R


 


The Keating Scandal

Over the weekend, John McCain's top adviser announced their plan to stop engaging in a debate over the economy and "turn the page" to more direct, personal attacks on Barack Obama.

In the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to change the subject from the central question of this election. Perhaps because the policies McCain supported these past eight years and wants to continue are pretty hard to defend.

But it's not just McCain's role in the current crisis that they're avoiding. The backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption that helped create the current crisis are looking more and more like the other major financial crisis of our time.

During the savings and loan crisis of the late ྌs and early ྖs, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.

Sound familiar?

In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain.


The point of the film and the web site is that John McCain still hasn't learned his lesson.

And this time, McCain's bankrupt economic philosophy has put our economy at the brink of collapse and put millions of Americans at risk of losing their homes.

Watch the video to see why John McCain's failed philosophy and poor judgment is a recipe for deepening the crisis:

http://my.barackobama.com/keatingvideo

It's no wonder John McCain would rather spend the last month of this election smearing Barack's character instead of talking about the top priority issue for voters.

It's long (13 minutes) but information every voter should know.


Scandal? That is hilarious! Everyone Obama
nm
Bush involved in leak scandal

Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal


Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:



Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.


This would explain why Bush http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/17/bush_plame/index1.html>spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom of it.” As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanageable.



Filed under:


Dyncorp & Halliburton Sex Slave Scandal

Dyncorp and Halliburton Sex Slave Scandal Won't Go Away
Halliburton, Dyncorp lobbyists stall law banning human trafficking and sex slavery


Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | January 1 2006


Almost a year after Representative Cynthia McKinney was told by Donald Rumsfeld that it was not the policy of the Bush administration to reward companies that engage in human trafficking with government contracts, the scandal continues to sweep up innocent children who are sold into a life of slavery at the behest of Halliburton subsidiaries , Dyncorp and other transnational corporations with close ties to the establishment elite.


On March 11th 2005, McKinney grilled Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers on the Dyncorp scandal.


Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?


The response and McKinney's comeback was as follows.


Rumsfeld: Thank you, Representative. First, the answer to your first question is, is, no, absolutely not, the policy of the United States Government is clear, unambiguous, and opposed to the activities that you described. The second question.



McKinney: Well how do you explain the fact that DynCorp and its successor companies have received and continue to receive government contracts?


Rumsfeld: I would have to go and find the facts, but there are laws and rules and regulations with respect to government contracts, and there are times that corporations do things they should not do, in which case they tend to be suspended for some period; there are times then that the - under the laws and the rules and regulations for the - passed by the Congress and implemented by the Executive branch - that corporations can get off of - out of the penalty box if you will, and be permitted to engage in contracts with the government. They're generally not barred in perpetuity.


McKinney: This contract - this company - was never in the penalty box.


Rumsfeld: I'm advised by DR. Chu that it was not the corporation that was engaged in the activities you characterized but I'm told it was an employee of the corporation, and it was some years ago in the Balkans that that took place.


Watch the video here.


Rumsfeld's effort to shift the blame away from the hierarchy at Dyncorp and onto the Dyncorp employees was a blatant attempt to hide the fact that human trafficking and sex slavery is a practice condoned by companies like Dyncorp and Halliburton subsidiaries like KBR.


What else are we to assume in light of recent revelations cited in the Chicago Tribune that Halliburton subsidiary KBR and Dyncorp lobbyists are working in tandem with the Pentagon to stall legislation that would specifically ban trafficking in humans for forced labor and prostitution by U.S. contractors?



Three years has now elapsed since President Bush's promise to bring an end to this disgrace and the Pentagon is still yet to actually bar the practice.


And the employees themselves that are burned for blowing the whistle, like Kathryn Bolkovac who was sacked for reporting on Dyncorp officials who were involved in the Bosnian sex trade.


Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is one of very few representatives in high office aside from Cynthia McKinney to demand answers on this issue.



We applaud Blagojevich's eforts. The iron curtain of official denial and soft-peddling is falling down.


What has happened to the children who were sold into slavery and forced to satisfy the demands of sick pedophiles working on behalf of the US government?


Where were the investigations and convictions in other cases of establishment orchestrated child slavery and prostitution? Like the NATO officials responsible for the mushrooming of child prostitution in Kosovo?


What happened to UN officials identified as using a ship charted for 'peacekeepers' to bring young girls from Thailand to East Timor as prostitutes?


In addition, we received an E mail from a person claiming to be a Dyncorp employee stating that a high level Dyncorp official is breaking the law by accepting payment from the US government and in turn the American taxpayer by falsifying timesheets and claiming pay for hours not worked.


The contact states that this was repeatedly brought to the attention of DynCorp program managers by Dyncorp employees but they were told it was none of their business.


It is important to stress that at the moment these are allegations and we have no proof of this other than the validity of the e mail.


The e mail is a reminder that we should always consider the fact that the vast majority of Dyncorp employees are just doing their jobs and have nothing to do with this scandal. It is a small faction at the head of the hydra that have authorized and engaged in these horrors.



We have a government that says it doesn't advocate torture and yet tries to block a law that would end torture. We have a government that repeatedly burns lower level minions to wash its hands of every major scandal that encompasses policies directly administered by the government itself, as in the case of Abu Ghraib and the Dyncorp sex scandal.


A government that covers-up for those who force children into prostitution and slavery is a clear danger to our very way of life.


We must demand answers and finally put an end to a process that exploits and wreaks terror on the lives of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society, whether they be in the Balkans, East Timor or here at home.


Our own children.


Ummm....what about that whole Iran-Contra Scandal...LOL (nm)
x
Like JOHN MCCAIN - Keating 5 Scandal

I guess JM is a crook, too


http://www.mahalo.com/Keating_5_Scandal


Financial crisis a democratic scandal....sm


http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/financial-crisis-a-democrat-scandal/

Read all the comments underneath this, if you have time.




Emanuel Was Director of Freddie Mac During Scandal...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1



Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal



New Obama Chief of Staff, Others on Board, Missed "Red Flags" of Alleged Fraud Scheme




November 7, 2008






President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com.


According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.


Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."


In a statement to ABCNews.com, a spokesperson said Emanuel served on the board for "13 months-a relatively short period of time."


The spokesperson said that while on the board, Emanuel "believed that Freddie Mac needed to address concerns raised by Congressional critics."


Freddie Mac agreed to pay a $50 million penalty in 2007 to settle the SEC complaint and four top executives of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation were charged with negligent conduct and, like the company, agreed to settle the case without admitting or denying the allegations.


The actions by Freddie Mac are cited by some economists as the beginning of the country's economic meltdown.


The federal government this year was forced to take over Freddie Mac and a sister federal mortgage agency, Fannie Mae, pledging at least $200 billion in public funds.


Freddie Mac records have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the suspect accounting procedures.


Emanuel was named to the Freddie Mac board by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and resigned his position when he ran for Congress in May, 2001.




Freddie Mac Misrepresented Income, Says SEC


During the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to the SEC, Freddie Mac substantially misrepresented its income to "present investors with the image of a company that would continue to generate predictable and growing earnings."


The role of the 18-member board of directors, including Emanuel, was not addressed in the SEC's public action but was heavily criticized by the oversight group (OFHEO) in 2003.


The oversight report said the board had been apprised of the suspect accounting tactics but "failed to make reasonable inquiries of management."


The report also said board members appointed by the President, such as Emanuel, serve terms that are far too short "for them to play a meaningful role on the Board."


As a Congressman, Emanuel recused himself from any votes dealing with Freddie Mac until just this year.


In dealing with the nation's economic crisis, the new White House chief of staff will almost certainly be involved in discussions about the house and mortgage markets.


Emanuel's spokesperson said, "As White House chief of staff he will work with President-elect Obama and his economic advisers to help ensure we protect taxpayers and homeowners."


When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Senate scandal snares Obama Chief Aide...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5337807.ece
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.


You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.


How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?


BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.


But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...


O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.


MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?


You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.


O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.


But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?


All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?


MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.


O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.


MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.


O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...


MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.


In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.


We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...


O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.


MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...


O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.


MAHER: Whatever it costs.


O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?


MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.


O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.


MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.


O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.


MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.


O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.


MAHER: Thank you.


O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.


MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.


O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?


MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?


O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.


MAHER: Yes.


O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.


But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.


There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.


I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.


MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.


O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.


Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?


MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.


O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.


Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.


MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.


O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.


Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"


Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.


Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.

Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.

It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
fool on the hill
We are at war, in the middle of a war so we cant talk badly about our president or administration..Oh please.  I will talk and shout out how awful this little jerk is in the WH and anyone else who sees the TRUTH, please speak out too.  To be quiet about this warmonger and what he is doing to America is a major crime.  No, I wont be quiet..I will scream out what this chickenhawk has done to America.  You can sit meekly by and take whatever the fool on the hill shoves your way.
What in the sam hill are you talking about?

Get the groove on sister. Let's get some real talking going here.


And I say again....look at all the experience on the hill now....
and where did it get us? In the worst financial crisis since the depression. Frankly, at this point, "experience" means ZIP to me. I am ready for some good old common sense. I don't care if they talk "purty," I want some good DECISIONS. She is looking the best to me in that area!
Here is the Capital Hill
202-204-3121 Capital Hill number.

http://www.senate.gov/

Here is the link to find your senators in your own state.

Once link is opened, look at upper right corner in blue area for Find Your Senators and pick your state.
Media Bias per AP, The Hill, etc.

When I said dems, I meant the ones on the hill....
I did not mean you. However, why are you not willing to hold them accountable? They are to blame. If it were Republicans at the heart of it, I would be saying the same thing. That is what I don't get about the party faithful on EITHER side.

Fact is, 92 dems voted no on it. Had they not, it would have passed. That was planned from the start. They do NOT want it to be a Dem majority, otherwise they would just pass it.

Why on earth should they vote for it if they don't believe in it and their constituents are asking them NOT to pass it, just because Bush wants it? THAT is what I am talking about. I say good for them. Toeing the party line is not what we need in this country. Holding people accountable is what we SHOULD be doing.
Actually, neither one means a hill of beans to me...thanks for trying...nm

How old were you when Anita Hill testified?
Go here and read the sexual harrassment section...in its entirity. He is a disgusting excuse for a human being and could only have been appointed and confirmed under a Bush administration...and my opinion of him has NOTHING to do with right of left. It has to do with right and wrong and the dignity of the SC, which CT undermines every time he walks into the chambers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
If these calls did not amount to a hill of
beans when it came time for my representatives to *roll up their sleeves* and do *THEIR JOBS,* then it is time to fire them and elect someone who will listen to the calls. That is why we elected them, to listen to their constituents and REPRESENT us! You just do not get the picture at all.
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
Relax, you're comparing everybody to Slick Will and Hill.
x
I never heard Hill commenting on SP breasts

Must have been on O'Reilly show.  Was there a large screen behind him showing various closeup videos of both Hillary's and SP's chests to illustrate the point?


 


Capital hill is being flooded with calls
to stimulus. So, if Obama states one more time during his speeches with a bunch of pronouns and adjectives, "The people want this!" I am going to..... well, barf! I still WANT MY MONEY BACK FROM THE BAILOUT. GOVERNMENT SUCKS!
Capital hill is being flooded with calls
to stimulus. So, if Obama states one more time during his speeches with a bunch of pronouns and adjectives, "The people want this!" I am going to..... well, barf! I still WANT MY MONEY BACK FROM THE BAILOUT. GOVERNMENT SUCKS!
That should be "grin" - anyone else watch Anita Hill hearings? nm

Anita Hill lied - there were two sides to the case
Only Thomas and Hill know what really happened. When this case was ongoing I was a democrat, yet I believed Thomas. People need to read the case and decide for themsleves. Just because Anita Hill said there was sexual harrassment doesn't mean it's true. I was on jury duty for a full week for a girl who said her boyfriend raped her. With her crying on the witness stand and carrying on I believed she was. On the fifth day we were all dismissed from duty, the girl told her lawyer that he really did not rape her and she made it up because she was made at him. Please don't go by just the link below either. Do some more researching, but from what I read of this article I don't think it's leaning towards one or the other side. All I'm saying is there are two sides of the story. By your post I'm sure if he was a democrat who wasn't getting ready to look over the info about the O you would praise him as a great judge.

http://volokh.com/posts/1191302418.shtml

Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill!
Vietnam-era radical Bill Ayers says he knows President-elect Barack Obama no better than thousands of other people in Chicago.

In an interview Friday morning on ABC's "Good Morning America," Ayers distanced himself from Obama. Ayers said — for example — the two didn't even meet before Ayers hosted an event at his home for Obama.

Ayers said the relationship was based on things like improving schools in their Chicago neighborhood — not on Ayers' political views.
only part saved was the ignorant part
You can read the whole article.  This quote was saved to show what she said that was so stupid.
Do ya think lithium would help here? (only kidding, doesn't make sense, but this is Capitol Hill
nm
Excuse me.....

How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available?  Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.


I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).


Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat. 


Excuse me, but I'm AO.

You are careless.  Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles.  Check it out.  Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country.  I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.


Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation.  See, there's more than one of us out here. 


Excuse me but it should have said *did not*

Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes.  Do you ever make a mistake?  I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me.  You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.


See ya...


Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM.  She is not above the law.  None of us are.  Everyone should be concerned about this behavior.  Bush had nothing to do with it!  My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.

Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm

I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below.  You have posted on our board, so I am posting here.  By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors.  Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below. 


 


*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics.  They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend.  They're winking at God and saying, See?  We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture.  We've secured our place with God.  The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*


 


As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side.  You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.


Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.

You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.

I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.


You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.

I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.

You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?


I say: See my answer above.

You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.

I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.

You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:

It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.

I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.

I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.

You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.

I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.

You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.

I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.

_________



You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.

I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.

And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.

Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.

That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.

What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?

Excuse me but I do not believe

I bashed SAHMs.  I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home.  You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home.  I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in.  My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family.  He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot.  So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs?  My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us.  Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there.  If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more.  If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more. 


It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice.  It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.