actually the justice screwed up

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

no matter who gets in. I feel sorry for whoever wins...what a mess they are taking over, not just with Bush but going back to the Clinton years. Neither candidate impresses me at all. I'm writing in someone this year.

I don't fit into either political party. My Dad was just an absolute RABID (LOL) Democrat. He would absolutely turn over in his grave if he knew 2 of his children had gone Republican (not this one). My brother and sister join me in this mess and thinking we're screwed either way. They haven't volunteered how they're going to vote but I suspect they'll stick with the Republicans (they both married RABID Republicans LOL). Neither of them want to see Palin in the White House, this I know but that's as far as we've gone.

All this aside, I totally agree with you. We don't need, particularly at this time, one party in control of everything. I know a lot of Americans are angry about a lot of things, of which I am one, but I don't want to throw the baby out in the bathwater either.

her religious views from legal views? Apparently NOT, if, during this secret conference call, a very select few Americans were privy to the information that, in fact, she WOULD overturn Roe v. Wade because of her religious beliefs.

If religion can't be a reason to exclude someone from the bench, it likewise can't be used as a reason to INCLUDE someone on the bench, as Bush attempted to do as a way to reassure his base *wink, wink, nod, nod* that they shouldn't worry, *She's one of US.*

That's only one troubling aspect of her nomination, though. Even Robert Bork *borked* her, saying she is a *disaster* and that she was a terrible writer.

The fact that she's judged Bush to be the most *brilliant* man she's ever met casts even further doubt about her ability to *judge* (but I admit that's an extension of my personal opinion and doesn't really count).

John Roberts is reported to be a very devout Catholic, yet nobody raised an eyebrow about that because his religion was never an issue. Bush himself MADE it an issue.

It's becoming clearer and clearer every day that this woman was nominated (1) because she's a Bush crony and (2) because she will guarantee that Roe will be overturned based on her own personal beliefs, not based on established legal precedent.

way this plays out? My biggest fear is having democrats in total control of everything. I don't like idea at all. I know a lot of people are just wanting to get republicans out of the way since they blame Bush for everything.

The big picture is that government as a whole (all parties) were involved in this crisis and it really is going to take all parties to pull us out. We need a split to keep things under control. Our country cannot afford to let everything go extreme left like it appears to be doing. We need some contrast and balance. If Obama were more middle of the road and not so extreme left.....I might consider voting for him. But he is way too extreme left for me. As a conservative.....I don't like that at all.

You know, the laws this country was founded on. Tell me where it's written that our troops fight overseas and are killed for a corrupt president who LIES????? They are fighting for oil and power, not our safety. And we're supposed to just pretend it isn't so? Even Colin Powell can't remain silent about Bush's treachery.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a card carrying member of the ACLU with all it's wackiness.

It's only when a conservative is nominated that they better not have affiliations with anything *gasp* religious or conservative leaning.

In the wake of Sen. Patrick Leahy's (somewhat) surprising and determined call for a Truth Commission to investigate the abuses of the Bush-Cheney administration, the Obama administration has been - to many progressives and those on the left of center - disturbingly silent. It's safe to say that the president's less-than-forceful position on the issue has been a source of intense criticism and skepticism from the left about the president's sincerity regarding his claims to promote a new era of transparency and accountability in American politics.

These concerns reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the president's perspective as well as his role. A Truth Commission is a serious matter. In societies overcoming severe oppression or wrongdoing, Truth (or Truth and Reconciliation) Commissions can serve a critical role in healing the wounds wrought by the injustices and can promote much-needed trust, goodwill and reconciliation between the various parties. Peru, South Africa, Morocco and East Timor are just a few of the places where TRCs have helped their societies heal and have facilitated reform by acknowledging past wrongs and ensuring that the horrors of history will not be repeated.

Night after night, on radio talk shows, disgruntled, self-identified progressives call in to inform the host and her audience that we (the American people) can - in fact - "walk and chew gum at the same time" (a response to the argument on the part of some Obama defenders that now - in the midst of the worst economic crisis in decades - is simply not the right time to focus our energies on a task of this magnitude - that such an effort would be an irresponsible distraction). Those folks, many of whom, frankly, invoke images of villagers wielding torches and pitchforks, are sadly missing the point.

For starters, the Obama administration has taken as its primary goal the mission of reconciliation, not retribution. Although his efforts have been thus far frustrated by a small but dogmatic segment of the Republican Party, Obama is, in the truest sense, a unifier. It is simply not the style - politically or personally - of this president to seek the same sort of "justice" desired by the pitchfork-wielding villagers. In the mind of this president (I imagine, anyway) emphasis on punishing wrongdoers runs the risk - especially in this very politically contentious climate - of only promoting divisions and inflaming precisely the wrong emotions necessary for a culture of healing - namely, anger, hostility and the desire for vengeance. To wit: one caller to a progressive radio show stated (apparently oblivious to the irony) that "Bush should be publicly shamed." Surely this person - and others like him - do not seriously believe that the appropriate response to the culture of impunity we've been subject to for the past eight years is the subsequent creation of a culture of retribution.

This is not to say that the president does not hold a high regard for the rule of law, or that Bush and the others should not be held accountable for their misdeeds - which in some cases, appear to rise to the level of crimes against humanity. To the contrary - and this brings me to my second point - the rule of law can only truly be applied in an environment that is as independent from political motive as possible. If Obama were to come out openly advocating the seeking of legal retribution for the crimes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others, it could not but be regarded (accurately, in my view) as a political maneuver. Such an event would degrade the president's legitimacy by rendering his tactics no better than those of the people he would seek to prosecute. While the president certainly can (and should) not hinder the prosecution of his predecessor and his administration should another state (who can use the ICC) or entity (such as an organized group wishing to file a class-action suit against the previous administration for harm to the group as a whole - e.g. taxpayers organization, veterans groups, etc.), it is not the job of the president himself to seek such "justice." Directly punishing their predecessors is something done by tyrants in authoritarian regimes, not by legitimate, democratic leaders in an open society. This is why it was the widely revered cleric Desmond Tutu, rather than the newly elected President Nelson Mandela, who led South Africa's own Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the conclusion of Apartheid in that country.

As Americans and democratic citizens, we have an obligation to acknowledge the truth about our recent shared past and its present consequences. But this can only legitimately be done by those whose job it is to hold leaders accountable in a democratic society - the people. And it can only justly be motivated by a genuine desire to adhere to the rule of law, not by a desire to seek political retaliation. Otherwise, our collective hope for evolution beyond the stains of our recent past is nothing more than a facade for our complicity in politics as usual.

--------

Cynthia Boaz is assistant professor of political science at Sonoma State University, where she specializes in political development, quality of democracy and nonviolent struggle.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVg2jiaBA1jwVfCdsisXI0FbZD0AD965BKCG0

NBC: Charges against Sheehan to be dropped
Antiwar mom removed from State of the Union for wearing protest shirt

WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.

U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush�s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, �2245 Dead. How many more?� � a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.

But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News� Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.

�We screwed up,� a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.

Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida � chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee � was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, �Support the Troops � Defending Our Freedom.�

The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.

Criticism from Rep. Young
Holding up the shirt his wife wore, Rep. Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning: �Because she had on a shirt that someone didn�t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery.�

�Shame, shame,� he scolded.

Beverly Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and was asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.

�They said I was protesting,� she told the St. Petersburg Times. �I said, �Read my shirt, it is not a protest.� They said, �We consider that a protest.� I said, �Then you are an idiot.��

They told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan, who was ejected before the speech. Sheehan wrote in her blog Wednesday that she intended to file a First Amendment lawsuit.

She did not issue an immediate response to the charges being dropped.

�I don�t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government,� Sheehan wrote in her blog.

Sheehan was invited as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. She later was released on her own recognizance.

Told she could not wear shirt?
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned Sheehan that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond, she said.

Sheehan, however, told a different story in her blog.

�I was never told that I couldn�t wear that shirt into the Congress,� Sheehan wrote. �I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things, ... I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.�

She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.

�I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn�t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket,� Sheehan wrote. �I didn�t want to be disruptive out of respect for her.�

She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, �Protester.�

�He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs,� she wrote in her blog. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.

Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush�s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.

As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.

Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.

We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)

All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.

Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.

THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.

Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.

Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel issued the following statement following the U.S. Department of Justice�s denial of preclearance of Georgia�s voter verification process

Atlanta - �The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia�s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ�s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.

�DOJ has thrown open the door for activist organizations such as ACORN to register non-citizens to vote in Georgia�s elections, and the state has no ability to verify an applicant�s citizenship status or whether the individual even exists. DOJ completely disregarded Georgia�s obvious and direct interest in preventing non-citizens from voting, instead siding with the ACLU and MALDEF. Clearly, politics took priority over common sense and good public policy.

�This process is critical to protecting the integrity of our elections. We have evidence that non-citizens have voted in past Georgia elections and that more than 2,100 individuals have attempted to register, yet still have questions regarding their citizenship. Further, the Inspector General�s office is investigating more than 30 cases of non-citizens casting ballots in Georgia elections, including the case of a Henry County non-citizen who registered to vote and cast ballots in 2004 and 2006.

�It is important to underscore that not a single person has come forward to say he or she could not vote because of the verification process. Further, while DOJ argues that the process is somehow discriminatory, the historic voter turnout among Hispanic and African-American voters in the 2008 general elections clearly says otherwise.

�This decision provides a specific example of the inherently illogical and unfair nature of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. It is a sad day for the rights of our state and for the integrity of our elections. I remain committed to continuing the fight for citizenship verification. In the coming days, I will consider every option available to the state, including the possibility of legal action.�

As required by law and ordered by federal courts in October 2008, the eligibility of new applicants to register and vote is checked against the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) and Social Security Administration databases to ensure that individuals registering to vote report similar information. If information in these databases does not match information reported on the voter registration form, the applicant is asked to clarify the information. Additionally, if the applicant previously reported to DDS that he or she is not a U.S. citizen, that person is asked by a registrar to provide proof of citizenship.

Prior to the November 2008 General Election, Secretary Handel sent letters to 4,771 voter registration applicants whose records at DDS indicated they were not U.S. citizens, asking them to provide documentation of their citizenship. As of March 2009, 2,148 of these applicants still have chosen not to resolve the question about their U.S. citizenship.

In the November 2008 General Election, county election officials reported that 599 individuals cast a challenged ballot because the voter had previously indicated to DDS that he or she was not a United States citizen and had not resolved their status with county officials at the time of the election. Of those, 369 ballots were accepted because the voter provided documentation of their citizenship after the election; and 230 were rejected because the individual chose not to confirm his or her citizenship status.

On October 10, 2008, activist organizations including the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit to attempt to prevent Georgia from verifying the eligibility of applicants to register and vote in the November General Election, including whether those individuals were citizens of the United States.

On October 16, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Jack Camp denied the motion by MALDEF and ACLU; directed the State to continue the verification process; and acknowledged the State�s requirements to verify information under the Help America Vote Act. In his order, Judge Camp stated:

HAVA requires that Defendant Handel match information in the statewide voter registration database with information from the Georgia DDS and the SSA databases �to the extent necessary to enable each such official to verify the accuracy of the information provided on the applications for voter registration.�