background check
Posted By: sosogohome on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: How did he become a Senator then? Did no know look into his background then? - ss
No matter what their assigned security levels are, they ALL have to undergo a background check whether it be given by CIA/FBI, etc.
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
Obama would not be able to pass the FBI background check...
due to his past associations, yet many want him to be president. Talk about blinders on. Sheeple, wake up and look at the man behind the curtain, he is NOT your friend.
If he wouldn't pass a background check to work
for the FBI....how can we trust him to be our president?
The FBI will initiate an intensive background investigation that you must pass before you can join the FBI. The investigation includes a polygraph examination; a test for illegal drugs; credit and records checks; and extensive interviews with former and current colleagues, neighbors, friends, professors, etc.
Well....I don't know if him buying his property for way less than it was valued through the help of Rezko would disqualify him or his associations with a racist person like Rev. Wright. Those two right there would disqualify him from employment with the FBI and those aren't the only two scary associations of Obama. Or maybe how the Woods Fund donated money to Rasheed whatever the heck his name is. The fact that he worked next to Ayers on an education committee. Even if he lied about all of this stuff....which he does because his stories frequently change....the polygraph would surely take him down and prove him lying.
If checking the adoption records is part of the normal background check, then the only reason this i
x
How did he become a Senator then? Did no know look into his background then?
Supposedly he is being called a terrorist, Muslim and is involved with all of these organizations, so I do not understand why and how he has been allowed to serve our government???? Did no one care about all of this when he was elected?????
Romney certainly has the background as far as the economy....
I kinda thought Obama was going to pick Biden, because Biden protested way too much...lol. But I really have NO idea where McCain is going. They have guarded it well.
but bring up Obama's questionable background, and
nm
I have the same feeling. I hear the background noise already nm
nm
WH Press Release & Background Sotomayor
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 26, 2009
Family members of Judge Sotomayor in attendance at today’s East Room announcement:
Celina Sotomayor (mother)
Omar Lopez (stepfather)
Juan Sotomayor (brother)
Tracey Sotomayor (sister-in-law)
Kylie Sotomayor (niece)
Conner and Corey Sotomayor (nephews)
Judge Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as “one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting” for her thoughtful opinions,i and as “a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity”ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.
Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America's leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.
Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said “Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her.”
In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.
An American Story
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Born to a Puerto Rican family, she grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx. Her parents moved to New York during World War II – her mother served in the Women’s Auxiliary Corps during the war. Her father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, died when Sotomayor was nine years old. Her mother, a nurse, then raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, Juan, now a physician in Syracuse. After her father’s death, Sotomayor turned to books for solace, and it was her new found love of Nancy Drew that inspired a love of reading and learning, a path that ultimately led her to the law.
Most importantly, at an early age, her mother instilled in Sotomayor and her brother a belief in the power of education. Driven by an indefatigable work ethic, and rising to the challenge of managing a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, Sotomayor excelled in school. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian of her class at Blessed Sacrament and at Cardinal Spellman High School in New York. She first heard about the Ivy League from her high school debate coach, Ken Moy, who attended Princeton University, and she soon followed in his footsteps after winning a scholarship.
At Princeton, she continued to excel, graduating summa cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa. She was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. At Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor served as an Editor of the Yale Law Journal and as managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. One of Sotomayor’s former Yale Law School classmates, Robert Klonoff (now Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School), remembers her intellectual toughness from law school: “She would stand up for herself and not be intimidated by anyone.” [Washington Post, 5/7/09]
A Champion of the Law
Over a distinguished career that spans three decades, Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system – yielding a depth of experience and a breadth of perspectives that will be invaluable – and is currently not represented -- on our highest court. New York City District Attorney Morgenthau recently praised Sotomayor as an “able champion of the law” who would be “highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character could be assets.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09]
A Fearless and Effective Prosecutor
Fresh out of Yale Law School, Judge Sotomayor became an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan in 1979, where she tried dozens of criminal cases over five years. Spending nearly every day in the court room, her prosecutorial work typically involved "street crimes," such as murders and robberies, as well as child abuse, police misconduct, and fraud cases. Robert Morgenthau, the person who hired Judge Sotomayor, has described her as a “fearless and effective prosecutor.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/9/09] She was cocounsel in the “Tarzan Murderer” case, which convicted a murderer to 67 and ½ years to life in prison, and was sole counsel in a multiple-defendant case involving a Manhattan housing project shooting between rival family groups.
A Corporate Litigator
She entered private practice in 1984, becoming a partner in 1988 at the firm Pavia and Harcourt. She was a general civil litigator involved in all facets of commercial work including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts, and agency law. In addition, her practice had a significant concentration in intellectual property law, including trademark, copyright and unfair competition issues. Her typical clients were significant corporations doing international business. The managing partner who hired her, George Pavia, remembers being instantly impressed with the young Sonia Sotomayor when he hired her in 1984, noting that “she was just ideal for us in terms of her background and training.” [Washington Post, May 7, 2009]
A Sharp and Fearless Trial Judge
Her judicial service began in October 1992 with her appointment to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. Still in her 30s, she was the youngest member of the court. From 1992 to 1998, she presided over roughly 450 cases. As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law. In 1995, for example, she issued an injunction against Major League Baseball owners, effectively ending a baseball strike that had become the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the World Series the previous fall. She was widely lauded for saving baseball. Claude Lewis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined “the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams.”
A Tough, Fair and Thoughtful Jurist
President Clinton appointed Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1998. She is the first Latina to serve on that court, and has participated in over 3000 panel decisions, authoring roughly 400 published opinions. Sitting on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has tackled a range of questions: from difficult issues of constitutional law, to complex procedural matters, to lawsuits involving complicated business organizations. In this context, Sotomayor is widely admired as a judge with a sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine. “’She appreciates the complexity of issues,’ said Stephen L. Carter, a Yale professor who teaches some of her opinions in his classes. Confronted with a tough case, Carter said, ‘she doesn’t leap at its throat but reasons to get to the bottom of issues.’” For example, in United States v. Quattrone, Judge Sotomayor concluded that the trial judge had erred by forbidding the release of jurors’ names to the press, concluding after carefully weighing the competing concerns that the trial judge’s concerns for a speedy and orderly trial must give way to the constitutional freedoms of speech and the press.
Sotomayor also has keen awareness of the law’s impact on everyday life. Active in oral arguments, she works tirelessly to probe both the factual details and the legal doctrines in the cases before her and to arrive at decisions that are faithful to both. She understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts. For example, In United States v. Reimer, Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion revoking the US citizenship for a man charged with working for the Nazis in World War II Poland, guarding concentration camps and helping empty the Jewish ghettos. And in Lin v. Gonzales and a series of similar cases, she ordered renewed consideration of the asylum claims of Chinese women who experienced or were threatened with forced birth control, evincing in her opinions a keen awareness of those women’s plights.
Judge Sotomayor’s appreciation of the real-world implications of judicial rulings is paralleled by her sensible practicality in evaluating the actions of law enforcement officers. For example, in United States v. Falso, the defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant should not have been issued, but the agents did not know that, and Judge Sotomayor wrote for the court that the officers’ good faith justified using the evidence they found. Similarly in United States v. Santa, Judge Sotomayor ruled that when police search a suspect based on a mistaken belief that there is a valid arrest warrant out on him, evidence found during the search should not be suppressed. Ten years later, in Herring v. United States, the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. In her 1997 confirmation hearing, Sotomayor spoke of her judicial philosophy, saying” I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.” Her record on the Second Circuit holds true to that statement. For example, in Hankins v. Lyght, she argued in dissent that the federal government risks “an unconstitutional trespass” if it attempts to dictate to religious organizations who they can or cannot hire or dismiss as spiritual leaders. Since joining the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has honored the Constitution, the rule of law, and justice, often forging consensus and winning conservative colleagues to her point of view.
A Commitment to Community
Judge Sotomayor is deeply committed to her family, to her co-workers, and to her community. Judge Sotomayor is a doting aunt to her brother Juan’s three children and an attentive godmother to five more. She still speaks to her mother, who now lives in Florida, every day. At the courthouse, Judge Sotomayor helped found the collegiality committee to foster stronger personal relationships among members of the court. Seizing an opportunity to lead others on the path to success, she recruited judges to join her in inviting young women to the courthouse on Take Your Daughter to Work Day, and mentors young students from troubled neighborhoods Her favorite project, however, is the Development School for Youth program, which sponsors workshops for inner city high school students. Every semester, approximately 70 students attend 16 weekly workshops that are designed to teach them how to function in a work setting. The workshop leaders include investment bankers, corporate executives and Judge Sotomayor, who conducts a workshop on the law for 25 to 35 students. She uses as her vehicle the trial of Goldilocks and recruits six lawyers to help her. The students play various roles, including the parts of the prosecutor, the defense attorney, Goldilocks and the jurors, and in the process they get to experience openings, closings, direct and cross-examinations. In addition to the workshop experience, each student is offered a summer job by one of the corporate sponsors. The experience is rewarding for the lawyers and exciting for the students, commented Judge Sotomayor, as “it opens up possibilities that the students never dreamed of before.” [Federal Bar Council News, Sept./Oct./Nov. 2005, p.20] This is one of many ways that Judge Sotomayor gives back to her community and inspires young people to achieve their dreams.
She has served as a member of the Second Circuit Task Force on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Courts and was formerly on the Boards of Directors of the New York Mortgage Agency, the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything. It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap. Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
People with felonies cannot pass background checks...sm
Even a pending felony, never mind a conviction. So,how does he have a job? I say we give him the boot.
LOL, yes, be sure to check with gt before you believe anything. She knows it all.
x
I will check
I honestly dont remember..I will check the history in my computer and see if I can find it..It could have been on Huffington or Crooks and Liars, one of the news sites I frequent..but it was from a newspaper, an article they had posted on their site..I will look this weekend. Dont jump at me..I do not want the president of the USA to be drinking again..I think if it is true it is sad and tragic for him both personally and professionally.
check this out
Check out http://groups.msn/home. They have lots of political groups, without censorship!
Check this out PK.sm
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease_2Jul2006.html
Thank you VERY much! I shall check it out.
I commend you for the volunteer work also. It might drive me nuts to know more about the dirt in politics than what is already obvious...
thanks again :-)
check out wnd.com
xxx
check your
facts instead of making things up. I do not mean the National Enquirer or Faux News. Karl Rove's people are advising McCain. That is why you see the silliness of celebrity ads and ads about people when Obama was 8 years old. At first, he tried to run on his own charisma and could get no attention -- all was focused on the charismatic young man from Chicago. Rove's people came in and started the negative ads. And McCain went right along with them. . ..
Thanks. I will check it out :) nm
nm
would you check it for me --
its seems to excite you. Me, not so much.
check this out
You can see plenty on michaesavage.com. I tried to copy/paste it, but this is all that transferred.
Piggy pols in hog heaven with pork-packed pact (New York Post) Congressional deal-brokers slopped a mess of pork into the $700 billion rescue bill passed by the Senate last night - including a tax break for makers of kids' wooden arrows ... Top 10 tax sweeteners in the bailout bill (Taxpayers for Common Sense) The "Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters" allows employers to provide a benefit for costs associated with bicycle commuting ...
Check this out
Awhile back my husband and I were picking up rocks off our property. I said, "I'm so bone tired I can't hit another dick!" Of course I meant to say that "I can't hit another lick." My husband is still laughing. So..........was I bone tired or not? Certainly I knew what I meant to say but it didn't just come out just right.
You check it out..............sm
This same blog post can be found all over the internet, so it is not from just "some obscure web page." Look for yourself.
The only hole around here is going to be the one this whole nation finds itself in if Obama is elected.
you can check these, there are several others
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=h57H_7i3GLE&feature=related
Check this out and see what you think...
This is a video of T. Boone Pickens on the daily show. If you don't like Jon Stewart, don't let that discourage you from checking this out. Pickens is talking about the energy plan he has been promoting.
go to: http://www.thedailyshow.com/
In the middle of the page is the video section. Go under that to the "coming up next" box and pick T. Boone Pickens.
Sorry about the round about directions, but I couldn't find the interview anywhere else.
Maybe you should check yours.
November 5, Israeal kills 6 in raid. Israel has continued its crippling blockade and never complied with the original condition of the truce that the blockade be lifted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
What I want to know is, how is this check
is supposed to be the tax cut he promised to 95% of the taxpayers. Now, that does not mean you have to pay INCOME taxes to get an income tax break, that would be if you pay any kind of taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc. If the government just sends me a check for $1000, this is my tax CUT, right? Now, I am supposed to take this money and spend it to stimulate the economy, right? Well, the check everyone got last year, mine and DHs went straight to the IRS, we never saw it. I expect the same thing to happen with this new one and I will still be paying the same tax rate as ever, until it is increased again. Where is my tax CUT? How many other *middle-income* folks do you think had this same situation?
BUT you won't get it in a check.
It's a payroll tax cut. It will show up in your pay. How much more can you do with $13 a week. That's what it comes out to for this year.
Check this out....(sm)
It's an older article, but the facts remain the same.
France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.
Paul V. Dutton is associate professor of history at Northern Arizona University and author of "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France," which will be published in September. !["](http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif")
Check this out....(sm)
It's an older article, but the facts remain the same.
France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.
Paul V. Dutton is associate professor of history at Northern Arizona University and author of "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France," which will be published in September.
Check this out....(sm)
Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4EWB0Wc4wQ
Then watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHHH3VBjSws&feature=related
And then watch this video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29506332#29506332
Check this out.............. sm
Since when does the POTUS bow to a foreign potentate? This man really has no clue............... Or does he? Be sure to read the article as well. 
You might want to check again.
It might have been JTBB and me that you saw. 
tnx will have to check those out.
Pretty hooked right now on 590klbj.com out of austin 5:30 a.m. to 10, one man always the voice of reason standing between the retired ex-cop and the I would swear has a gray ponytail liberal, but I notice even in the last couple of years he coming over to the dark side more and more. Ed and Sgt. Sam can flat get into it sometimes. I am actually listening to radio much more than TV, like hearing what the guy on the street has to say and you just don't get much of that on TV.
check article above
Well, we might just get an investigation into the Downing Street Memos after all and then when it is proven that Bush contrived this war and lied for this war, you can post here that yes Bush is a liar. I refer you to the above post about the Downing Street Memos above. Interesting article. States finally a republican is wanting an investigation into the Downing Street Memos, as so far it has only been democrats asking for an investigation.
You may want to check your sources.
Actually this may be more accurate:
Katrina Victims Welcomed in Massachusetts
Massachusetts to take about 2,500 refugees from hurricane” – The Associated Press
“Massachusetts will take in about 2,500 Hurricane Katrina refugees in coming days, sheltering them on Cape Cod for up to two months and likely resettling some permanently in the Bay State, Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday.
Romney said federal emergency officials told him Sunday to prepare for the evacuees, who will arrive in two to three days, and will be temporarily housed at Camp Edwards on Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod.
Otis has many amenities to accommodate the large numbers, including beds, a school, medical facilities, a gymnasium and a movie theater, he said.”
Check out this site
 http://www.filmstripinternational.com/index.php?asshole
Reality check
You just cannot stay off this board can you? Don't you get it? We don't want to debate with you. We are just as set in our beliefs as you are in yours. No one here is interested in anything you have to say, so please, get a life or at least stay on your own board.
For Reality Check. sm
I think my post did sound a little hateful. I am sure you are a very nice person. You see, this is a country divided, and I am certain I am not the only one on this board, to feel that GWB has had a lot to do with that. Like I said, I am sure you are a nice person. However, this is a country divided, nothing will make me change my mind about this administration. I fear for either party that gets in next time, if it is a democrat, they cannot hardly get ahead because of the blunders made by the current administration. In a nutshell, I sincerely feel like this country has never been more divided, and perhaps that is why the moderators decided to split the two boards to begin with. Post all you want, you will get no more nasty responses for me. I however will feel at liberty to post jokes when I feel like it. I lurk on the conservative board, but do not post. There are many right-winged jokes and cartoons over there and I do not post my opinion - because that is their board.
Good one! Check this out
http://mkanejeeves.com/?p=213
A cell of miscreants in Frostbite Falls, Minnesota at the college Whattsamatta U., led by two shadowy figures nicknamed *Moose and Squirrel.* LOL
Anything to get those poll numbers out of the toilet...oh, right,I forgot, they don't pay attention to those.
They don't have a blank check
They are a U.S. ally and we support them. Lebanon is not an ally and a blatantly terrorist state. Of course we're going to side with Israel, but no we are not giving them a blank check thus the push of a cease fire.
You've got to check this out
if you haven't already. Go, Paul! http://-paulhipp-.cf.hufingtonpost.com/SUBIRAQIAN%30HOMESICK%20BLUES%204.htm or http://www.myspace.com/paulhipp for other great videos.
Check my posts
I am a pro-choicer and I believe I am allowed to post where ever I please, as long as I am respectful.
And while they are at it they should check out Obama's...
minister and mentor's views on Jews...and Jessie Jackson's views on Jews (hymietown) and Obama's mentor's hero (Louis Farrakhan) views on Jews...("Hitler was a great man" is one of his more memorable quotes). The fact that his middle name is Hussein is the LEAST of my concerns about Barack Obama.
Check your sources
Get your facts straight. Obama was sworn in using a bible. It was another congressman, Keith Ellison, who was sworn in using the Koran.
You can also check out NPR on the radio....
conservative they ARE NOT.
THanks, Whorn...will check it out! (nm)
nm
Thanks - going to check out those sites
Thanks for the links.
Reality check.
October 2001 to February 2003. That’s how long it took to sell the war to Congress, democrats and republicans alike, and to the American public, according to Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.). Not some left-wing wacko. Just a high-rank retired Air Force colonel who conducted a study.
A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet of Falsehoods
http://www.rense.com/general44/50.htm.
The power of propaganda. They bought it, hook, line and sinker. That was then and this is now, and what we know NOW is that Bush lied. No WMDs. No Iraq-sponsored terrorism. It's still about the oil.
BTW, there is a Bechtel-commissioned BTC pipeline in Georgia, "secured" by US troops, who also provide advisors and training to Georgia military. Russia doesn't like US-trained troops in its backyard either. You won't hear it on Fox, but Russia has not confined it's invasion to Ossetia. They targeted that pipeline 18 hours ago. Sometimes you follow the money. Other times, you follow the oil.
Fox News, YouTube, nohussein.org? Consider the source. Abortion is legal. The issue is choice. Some choose not to do it, others choose to exercise their right to choose. Those who do appreciate any politician who is willing to go to the mat to uphold Roe vs Wade. Unlikely to be reversed anytime soon and, in this election, far down on the list of priorities.
Reality check #2.
No need to wonder what the colonel would have to say about that uranium since the issue was extensively scrutinized in his study.
It has been known for decades that Iraq had a reactor at Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center and a nuclear materials testing facility at Osiraq, damaged in a bombing by the Iranians in 1980 and disabled by Israeli air attacks in 1981 in an operation that was condemned by the US at the time since we were backing Saddam against Iran. Ten years later, these same facilities were completely destroyed by Americans in the 1991 Gulf War, 12 years before Bush sold his version of Gulf War II to the American public.
This would be the same 500 metric tons of reactor grade uranium (the kind used as fuel in producing clean electricity). It was NOT weapons grade uranium. Being well documented by the UN and the IAEA, this stash of uranium was legal and had been controlled and monitored in accordance with international law since the Gulf War. The uranium was removed from Iraq and transported to Canada to be used in their nuclear energy facilities. The inspections team found NO EVIDENCE of any yellowcake in Iraq dating from after 1991. So if the terrorists had managed to get their hands on it, the US would be held accountable since they destroyed the reactor, knew about the stock piles, returned to occupy Iraq in 2003, but were too busy killing Iraqis to bother with disposing of the uranium for 5 full years. No wonder they were keeping it a secret.
Speaking of yellowcake uranium and propaganda, back in January 2003, Bush accused Saddam of trying to buy it from Niger, based on Italian, British and French intelligence sources. Notice this occurred between October 2001 and February 2003, as stated in the previous post, when Bush was busy doing anything and everything he could to dupe the Congress and public into supporting his war. The polite word for this intelligence is “faulty.” A more accurate description would be forgery. The colonel talks about this too, but his study is a bit obscure and hard to locate. Google Niger uranium and Iraq and this link pops up in case anybody wants to read more about that one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries
As for the chemical and biological weapons used against his own people, that would be the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988, when 7000 civilians died and in 14 other Kurd villages. The reason we knew about those chemical and biological weapons is because the US sold them to Saddam to use against the Iranians (as did the UK, Germany, France and others). Check out the Senate committee's reports on US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq from a 1992 report. Reagan and Bush Sr. sold Iraq anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, botulism, germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia, Salmonella, E. coli, brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene, to name a few.
From 1991 to 1998 UNSCOM inspected and scoured Iraq, accounting for some 95+% of the known agents before they left. Despite all the suspicions put forth by the Bush propaganda machine in 2003 and the best search efforts of the US since the occupation, no evidence of the remaining inventory has been uncovered.
Like it or not, abortion has been legal in the US for 35 years. The answer to your questions about choice is simple. It’s the mother’s body, not yours, not the government’s. Her choice. Nobody’s else’s. That is the law. The law does not force abortion for those who do not believe in it, nor does it prevent it for those who do. Morality can be legislated after the American theocracy has been established. Until then, it is about choice.
Bush’s contempt for the courts is no secret. They do not simply uphold law. They also interpret it and have discretionary authority to issue decisions and opinions. The constitution provides us with 3 executive branches for a reason. It’s called checks and balances. No candidate or president should be opposed to seeing that part of the constitution upheld.
Check obama out more thoroughly
He was elected by the Daley machine in IL -- he never voted a bill into office, never served in the military for his country and his wife is the CEO of one of the largest health care organizations in this country. He also has NO executive experience whatsoever!!!!
John McCain on the other hand, served his country and with HONOR and DIGNITY. The problem, right now as I see it, is that we have a bunch of 'whiners and complainers' and the conflict in Iraq is the FIRST war that MANY people have EVER experienced in their lives -- my daughter, was in the Army during the September 11 attacks, stationed in New York and survived -- if we elect Barack "Milhouse" Obama, we as a country, will be in FAR worse shape than we already are.
His parents were communists, he was mentored by a card-carrying communist, he advocated for socialist causes in Chicago and downstate IL and his pastor is a virulent black liberation theologist. THESE ARE the credentials of Barack "Mihouse" Obama
Quotes are from Mark Levin because it is poltically IMPERMISSABLE to say 'Hussain"
Uh...you might want to check your sources on that one.
Can't get around to the rest of the post this p.m., 'cause it took a little time to get the response together for the first sentence:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/071708.html:
On July 17, 2008, John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced the committee would be holding a hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George Walker Bush and possible legal responses. The hearing convened on July 25, 2008.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9689
Here's some video (July 25, 2008 through August 14, 2008). As you can see, it is ongoing. I included the link above because that is the day Vicent Bugliosi was there.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4333.html:
May not have heard about this on your mainstream media outlets because there has been a media blackout. Of course, for those out there who find this in the least bit interesting, try some alternative media sources. Pacifica Foundation (Pacifica.org) publicly funded, listener sponsored radio outlets (not NPR) would be a good place to start. Their most popular show, Democracy Now!, has put out some fairly interesting stuff on this hearing and it surrounding issues. Here are a few links.:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/14/after_ron_suskind_reveals_bush_admin
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/13/the_way_of_the_world_ron
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/28/house_judiciary_committee_hold_historic_hearings
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/former_senator_mike_gravel_calls_for
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/despite_opposition_from_his_own_party
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/22/pentagons_pundits_a_look_at_the
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/20/to_impeach_or_not_to_impeach
The ones from 06/13, 06/17 and 07/28 have more on Bugliosi.
The grounds for impeachment are WAY too long to get into here, but you could always Google "Article of Impeachment GW Bush 2008" for the details.
So far, the committee has heard from these guys:
Robert Wexler, D-Rep Florida
Dennis Kucinich D-Rep Ohio
Sheila Jackson-Lee D-Rep Texas
Tim Johnson D-Rep S. Dakota
Tammy Baldwin D-Rep Wisconsin
Keith Ellison D-Rep
Maurice Hinchey D-Rep NY
Elizabeth Holtzman D-Rep NY
Rocky Anderson former mayor of Salt Lake City
Eliott Adams, President of Board Veterans for Peace
Bob Barr, former R-Rep from Georgia
So much for lack of interest in impeachment hearings. Who knows where this will all end up, but Bugliosi reminds us that there is no statue of limitations on murder. Tune it out if you like...or not.
|
