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

trust

Posted By: bassfishinisfun on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: Yep, you probably would, which is the problem - with this country......nm

and what do you REALLY mean by your reply??




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

not as badly as Obama...don't trust him at all...Mccain maybe a couple of degrees more trust...sm
Not much, but just a little. I will not condone someone (Obama), who makes my "crap detector" go off every time I see and hear him.

Don't trust a word he says.....he is bad, bad news bears.


I trust him
and I think we're all going to be very surprised at what comes out in the Libby trial, and I don't think the dems and their cohorts in the mainstream media are going to come out in a good light.

BTW, I love how you state your opinion as fact. You should get a job in the MSM. They would love you.
Trust
but Verify - Ronald Reagan considered a great pres by repubs.  They don;t often mention the rest fo the statement "the cake will be there when you return."
trust you?
dont' think so.  I dont care what Obama's religion is or how he was raised.  I dont care if his preacher did preach racist comments.  That does not make it okay for you to be racist, or for me to be racist.  Just because someone else may be ignorant doesnt make it okay for you to be ignorant.  You talk about change, or doing something about prejudice, what are YOU doing?  You arent trying to stop it by getting on here and BEING prejudice.  So get over yourself please!  I mean, come one are you 5?  Didn't mommy teach you that just because someone does something mean to you, it's not okay to do it back?  Grow up.  And as far as Acorn is concerned, just because they slap some pictures of black people that are related to Acorn, doesnt mean that it is a racist group.  Did they do something wrong with the votes?  I believe so.  Does it mean they are racist?  NO.  Geeze, people get a life. 
I don't trust EITHER of them but

McCain flapping his wings and crowing about "when I was in the Hanoi Hilton," etc.etc, completely turned me off.  Not that I didn't and don't respect his service to the country, I was already aware of it and his constant crowing made it sound a tad too much like bragging or tooting his own horn for my liking.  Then when he appointed Palin as his running mate, that REALLY blew it.


Now about Palin.  The fact that she has no "experience in Washington" is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.  I have called her an "airhead" and continue to do so.  Is she really an airhead?  None of us really know.  Her speech at the Republican convention was obviously scripted. She delivered it well.  Then they would not let the media at her for (wishfully) unscripted interviews until they had had at her for brainwashing.  Then they set her out as a pit bull attacking Obama...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE.  She continues with her pre-programmed speeches.  She might be the sweetest cookie on the sheet but we'll never know.  She ALLOWED herself to be programmed into what she is.  A reformer?  I think not.  Had she have been a true reformer, once she was appointed, she might have come out swinging with something like, "look, folks, I'm running on the Republican ticket but I don't agree with them and I don't agree with the Democrat leadership either.   Here is what I will TRY to do for you......"  It would have given the RNC heart failure but I, for one, would have voted for her,  not McCain.  As I see it, Palin=McCain=Bush and we don't need 4 more days of Bush policies, much less 4 more years.


Who can you trust?
Weapons of mass destruction. Patriot Act. Wire taping. Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo Bay. Fannie and Freddie. Bernanke and Paulson. Bush and Cheney............
Trust me, he definitely did not want
tainly did not remain neutral, after all, he does report for CNN remember. It will definitely be one-sided.
Oh trust me....
our ball park is a smoke free area and there are still those smokers who think it is okay to smoke.  When I'm anywhere near cigarette smoke my sinuses clog up and I get a major headache.  It irritates me that I can't even watch my 5 y/o's T-ball games without a major headache from some inconsiderate twit who can't follow the no smoking rules.
Trust me....(sm)

It was not the LGBT community's idea to put this to a vote.  Why would you think that they would do that when they are an obvious minority?  That idea came from evangelicans, and the advertising before the vote was bought and paid for by the religious community.


Just keep in mind...if they had brought the subject of whether or not women had the right to vote in this country to a popular vote, it probably would not have passed. 


Trust me, .- aka ( ) aka P******
with a new e-mail address and a new monicker but the same disruptive style (which is getting pretty easy to recognize).  She needs a new hobby, or a library card or something else to occupy her time. Maybe nobody else will play with her? I think the best way to handle this is not open her posts and definitel never respond to them.  
Hmm, I would say most do not trust government.sm
Fear and paranoia are a given, they instill it in us 24/7. Viewership of MSM outlets is way down, so I guess Fox would be #1 with just Bush supporters. I want truth and accountability from the media and our elected officials period. I dumped the Republican party because we are not getting truth or accountability. I will vote for the first candidate that does something about it.
Politicians - I don't trust ANY of them
Especially ones who will have anything to do with Clintons (both of them) or any of Clintons cabinet people.
Sure as h--- can't trust McPain.
He'll have the middle class in complete shambles, a war in Iran, forget an education for your kids, infrastructure will be in shambles as now, and oil will still be our staple.  No change, just more BS.
I trust him to smile

charmingly when someone puts one of the silly distraction issues to him.  He  brushes it off and continues to work on plans for correcting the financial disaster brought about by McClain's deregulation legislation with Phil Gramm, ending the senseless war, and the dozens of other serious issues that we are facing.


 


Polls mean nothing. Don't trust them. - sm
Polls have always been used by the media to sway people to vote one way or the other. I have no idea how they can even count them as reputible. The real poll is when people vote and I have never heard anyone say that they are voting a certain way because of the polls. What we are hearing on the news is made up to fit whichever news station you ware watching and from what I see and read on the internet the polls change hourly.
Do you trust Obama ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC_XtTh_ddE
Who asked you to trust me? (sm)
I really don't care if you trust me or not.  That's just rediculous.  Don't trust me...look something up for a change.  I'm simply stating facts.  What you need to do is just admit you got busted and quit digging yourself into a deeper hole. 
He has my respect, but not my trust....
he needs to EARN that and show us what he is made of. This, to me, was more of a vote against republicans than a vote for Obama; had the economy not tanked as badly, he wouldn't have had a chance. I do wish him well, as he is getting into a mess even bigger than he anticipated. We are all Americans first and should stand behind our president.
Trust factor

You know, Sam, I don't know if Obama is trustworthy or not.  I don't know him and I don't know John McCain.  I think we would all do well to keep an eye on the direction of our country.  I really, really thought McCain would end up in the White House but with the landslide electorate vote I don't see any way that could possibly happen now.  Maybe it would be a good idea to get to work on doing away with the electorate.  The popular vote should be enough.  It appears to me that elections are decided really just by a few states.


Sooooooo I'm not really sure that we have time to worry about whether we trust the new president or not.  I don't trust any politicians but the cards have been dealt and there's plenty we all need to do.


I think anyone should have to earn trust....
and respect. I know what John McCain is and what he is not, from his voting record and his history. I know what Barack Obama is from his own books, his life and his voting history. Obama threw a lot of his previous life under the bus as each issue was raised because it would have been a roadblock to his candidacy. I find that dishonest and lacking in integrity.

All that being said...it is up to him alone to either solidify my opinion of him or change it. But I am not jumping on his bandwagon simply because he won the election.

:)
That's OK. I'm sure you can put your trust in fine,
*
Trust me, what JTBB has to say is far
nm
In Congress We Trust....NOT

SIBEL EDMONDS: In Congress We Trust...Not


The former FBI translator and whistleblower suggests blackmail may be at the heart of Congressional refusal to bring accountability and oversight to its own members - such as both Hastert and Harman - in matters of espionage and national security


Exclusive to The BRAD BLOG...


Posted By Sibel Edmonds On 4th May 2009 @ 13:41 In Dennis Hastert, NSA, National Security, Mainstream Media Failure, Accountability, U.S. House, FBI, Henry Waxman, U.S. Senate, Nancy Pelosi, Bush Legacy, Jane Harman | 54 Comments


Guest Editorial by Sibel Edmonds


I have been known to quote long-dead men in my past writings. Whether eloquently expressed thoughts by our founding fathers, or those artfully expressed by ancient Greek thinkers, these quotes have always done a better job starting or ending my thoughts - that tend to be expressed in long winding sentences. For this piece I am going to break with tradition and start with an appropriate quote from a living current senator, John Kerry: "It's a sad day when you have members of Congress who are literally criminals go undisciplined by their colleagues. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken."


The people do indeed look at Washington and know that this city is 'badly' broken, Senator Kerry. The public confidence in our Congress has been declining drastically. Recent poll results [1] highlight how the American people's trust in their Congress has hit rock bottom. A survey of progressive blogs easily confirms the rage rightfully directed at our Congress for abdicating its role of oversight and accountability. Activists scream about promised hearings that never took place - without explanation. They express outrage when investigations are dropped without any justification. And they genuinely wonder out loud why, especially after they helped secure a major victory for the Democrats. The same Democrats who had for years pointed fingers at their big bad Republican majority colleagues as the main impediment preventing them from fulfilling what was expected of them.


The recent stunning but not unexpected revelations [2] regarding Jane Harman (D-CA) by the Congressional Quarterly provide us with a little glimpse into one of the main reasons behind the steady decline in the integrity of Congress. But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media's insistence on burying 'real' issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation's continuous downward slide. In this particular case, the 'thank you' should also be extended to certain blogosphere propagandists who, blinded by their partisanship, myopic in their assessments, and ignorant in their knowledge of the inner workings of our late Congress and intelligence agencies, helped in the post-burial cremation of this case.


Ironically but understandably, the Harman case has become one of rare unequivocal bipartisanship, when no one from either side of the partisan aisle utters a word. How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar. Others may still feel the heavy baggage of their own party's tainted colleagues; after all, they have had their share of Abramoffs, Hasterts and the like, silently lurking in the background, albeit dimmer every day. Some on the left, after an initial silence that easily could have been mistaken for shock, are jumping from one foot to the other, like a cat on a hot tin roof, making one excuse after another; playing the 'victims of Executive Branch eavesdropping' card, the same very 'evil doing' they happened to support vehemently. Some have been dialing their trusted guardian angels within the mainstream media and certain fairly visible alternative outlets. They need no longer worry, since these guardian angels seem to have blacked out the story, and have done so without the apparent need for much arm twisting...



Hastert Redux


I am going to rewind and take you back to September 2005, when Vanity Fair published an article [3], which, in addition to my case and the plight of National Security Whistleblowers, exposed the dark side of the then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (R-IL), and the corroborated allegations of his illegal activities involving foreign agents and interests.


Vanity Fair printed the story only after they made certain they were on sure footing in the face of any possible libel by lining up more than five credible sources, and after triple pit-bull style fact-checking. They were vindicated; Hastert did not dare go after them, nor did he ever issue any true denial. Moreover, further vindication occurred only a month ago. On April 10, 2009, The Hill reported [4] that the Former Speaker of the House was contracted to lobby for Turkey. The Justice Department record on this deal indicates that Hastert will now be "principally involved" on a $35,000-a-month contract providing representation for Turkish interests. That seems to be the current arrangement for those serving foreign interests while on the job in Congress --- to be paid at a later date, collecting on their IOU's when they secure their positions with 'the foreign lobby.'


In a recent article [5] for American Conservative Magazine, Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer stationed in Turkey, made the following point: "Edmonds's claims have never been pursued, presumably because there are so many skeletons in both parties' closets. She has been served with a state-secrets gag order to make sure that what she knows is never revealed, a restriction that the new regime in Washington has not lifted."


And then, he hits the nail on its head: "In Hastert's case, it certainly should be a matter of public concern that a senior elected representative who may have received money from a foreign country is now officially lobbying on its behalf. How many other congressmen might have similar relationships with foreign countries and lobbying groups, providing them with golden parachutes for their retirement?"


Congress went mum on my case after the Vanity Fair story, with, of course, the mainstream media making it very easy for them. They turned bipartisan in not pursuing the case, with the same zeal as they have, so far, not pursued the Harman case. Similarly, the mainstream media is happily letting it all disappear.


I was not aware that during the publication of the Hastert story in Vanity Fair, Jane Harman's AIPAC case was already brewing in the background. Moreover, one of the very few people in Congress who was notified about Harman was none other than Hastert --- the man himself. The same Hastert, who in addition to being one of several high-ranking officials targeted by FBI counterintelligence and counterespionage investigations, was also known to be directly involved in several other high profile scandals: from his intimate involvement in the Abramoff scandal [6], to the Rep. William Jefferson scandal [7]; from his 'Land Deal' scandal [8] - where he cashed in millions off his position while "serving", to the 2006 House Page scandal [9].


All for One, One for All?


How does it work? How do these people escape the consequences of accountability? Are we talking about the possible use of blackmail by the Executive Branch against Congressional representatives, as if the days of J. Edgar Hoover were never over? Cases such as NSA illegal eavesdropping come to mind, when Congressional members were briefed long before it became public, yet none took any action or even uttered a word; members of both parties. Or is it more likely to be a case of secondhand blackmail, where members of Congress watch out for each other? Or, is it a combination of the above? Regardless, we see this 'all for one, one for all' kind of solidarity in Congress when it comes to criminal conduct and scandals such as those of Hastert and Harman.


Although at an initial glance, based on the wiretapping angle, the Harman case may appear to involve blackmailing --- or a milder version, exploitation of Congress by the Executive Branch --- deeper analysis would suggest even further implications, where Congressional members themselves use the incriminating information against each other to prevent pursuit or investigation of cases that they may be directly or indirectly involved in. Let me give you an example based on the Hastert case mentioned earlier:


In 2004 and 2005 I had several meetings with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) investigative and legal staff. Two of these meetings took place inside a high-security SCIF [10], where details and classified information pertaining to my case and those involved could be discussed.


I was told, and at the time I believed it to be the case, that the Republican majority was preventing further action - such as holding a public hearing on my whistleblower revelations. Once the Democrats took over in 2006, that barrier was removed, or so I thought.


In March 2007, I was contacted by one of Rep. Waxman's staff people who felt responsible and conscientious enough to at least let me know that there would never be a hearing into my case by their office, or for that matter, any Democratic office in the House. Based on his/her account, in February 2007 Waxman's office was preparing the necessary ingredients for their promised hearing, but in mid-March the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called Waxman into a meeting on the case, and after Waxman came out of that twenty-minute meeting, he told his staff 'we are no longer involved in Edmonds' case.' And so they became 'uninvolved.'


What was discussed during that meeting? The facts regarding the FBI's pursuit [11] of Hastert, and certain other representatives, were bound to come out in any Congressional hearing into my case. Now we know that Hastert and Pelosi were both informed of Harman's role in a related case involving counterespionage investigation of AIPAC. Is it possible that Pelosi asked Waxman to lay off my case in order to protect a few of their own in an equally scandalous case? Was there a deal made between the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House to keep this and other related scandals hushed? Will we ever know the answer to these questions? Most likely not, considering the current state of our mainstream media.


And the victims remain the same: The American people who have entrusted their Congress with the role of ensuring oversight and accountability.


This kind of infestation touches everyone in Congress; one need not have a skeleton of his own to get sucked into the swamp of those infested. Does Waxman have to be a sinner to take part in the sin committed by the Hasterts and Harmans of Congress? Certainly not. On the other hand, he and others like him will abide by the un-pledged oath of 'solidarity with your party members' and 'loyalty to your dear colleagues.'


Rotten at its Core


Back to the enablers: How can we explain the continued blackout by the mainstream media, and/or, the logic-free defenses of the Harmans and Hasterts alike by the apologist spinners --- some of whom pass as the 'alternative' media? Some are committing what they rightfully accused the previous administration and their pawns of doing: cherry picking the facts, then, spin, spin, and spin until the real issue becomes blurry and unrecognizable. The conspiracy angle aimed at the timing; Porter Goss' possible beef with Jane Harman; accusing the truth divulgers, CQ sources, of being 'conspirators' with ulterior motives; portraying Harman as an outspoken vigilante on torture. And if those sound too lame to swallow, they throw in a few evil names from the foggy past of Dusty the Foggo man! If the issue and its implications weren't so serious, these spins of reality would certainly make a Pulitzer-worthy satire.


Let's take the issue of timing. First of all, the story was reported [12], albeit not comprehensively, by TIME magazine years ago. It took a tenacious journalist, more importantly a journalist that could have been trusted by the Intel sources to give it real coverage. It is also possible that the sources who leaked in the Harman case got fed up and disillusioned by the absence of a real investigation and decided to 'really' talk. After all, the AIPAC espionage case was dropped [13] by the Justice Department's prosecutors within two weeks of the Harman revelations.


Same could be said about the Hastert story. At the time, many asked why the story was not told during the earlier stages of my case. It took three years for me and other FBI and DOJ sources to exhaust all channels; Congressional inquiry, IG investigation, and the courts. Those who initially were not willing to come forward and corroborate the details opened up to the Vanity Fair journalist, David Rose, in 2005.


Now let's look at the 'blackmail' and 'Goss Plot' angles. Of course the 'blackmail' scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible. We all can picture one of the President's men in the White House pulling an opposing Congressional member aside and whispering 'if I were you, Congressman, I'd stop pushing. I understand, as we speak, my Justice Department is looking into certain activities you've been engaged in.'


We all can imagine, easily, a high-ranking Justice Department official having a 'discreet' meeting with a member of Congress who's been pushing for a certain investigation of certain department officials for criminal deeds, and saying, 'dear Congresswoman, we are aware of your role in a certain scandal, and are still pondering whether we should turn this into a direct investigation of you and appoint a special prosecutor…'


But, let's not forget, the misuse of incriminating information, for the purpose of blackmail, does not turn the practitioner of the wrongful deed into a victim, nor does it make the wrongful criminal deed less wrong. Instead of spinning the story, taking away attention from the facts in hand, and making Harman a victim, we must focus on this case, on Harman, as an example of a very serious disease that has infected our Congress for far too long. Those who have been entrusted with the oversight and accountability of our government cannot do so if they are vulnerable to such blackmail from the very same people they are overseeing…Period.


Those who have been elected to represent the people and their interests cannot pursue their own greed and ambitions by engaging in criminal or unethical activities against the interests of the same people they've sworn to represent, and then be given a pass.


As for far-reaching ties such as Harman's stand on torture, or a specific beef with former CIA Director Porter Goss, or wild shots from the hip in bringing up mafia-like characters such as Dusty Foggo; please don't make us laugh! Are we talking about the same Hawkish Pro-Secrecy Jane Harman here?! Harman's staunch support of NSA Wiretapping of Americans, the FISA Amendment of 2008, the Patriot ACT, the War on Iraq, and many other activities on the Civil Liberties' No-No list, is widely recognized by almost everyone, apparently, but the authors of the recent apologist spin.


And, let's not forget to add her own long-term cozy relationship with AIPAC, and the large donations she's received from various other AIPAC-related pro-Israeli PACs. To these certain 'wannabe' journalists, driven by far from pure agenda(s), shame on you; as for honor-worthy vigilant activists out there: watch out for these impostors with their newly gained popularity among those tainted in Washington, and take a hard look at whose agendas [14] they are serving as a mouthpiece for.


Despite a certain degree of exposure, cases such as Harman's and Hastert's, involving corruption of public officials, seem to meet the same dead-end. Criminal conduct, by powerful foreign entities, against our national interest, is given a pass, as was recently proven by the abandonment of the AIPAC spy case. The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media seem now to have been almost universally accepted as a fact of life.


Pursuit of cases such as mine, via cosmetically available channels, has been, and continues to be proven futile for whistleblowers.


Therefore, you may want to ask, why in the world am I writing this piece? Because more and more people --- although not nearly enough --- are coming to the realization that our system is rotten at it's core; that in many cases we have been trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause.


I, like many others, believed that changing the Congressional majority in 2006 was going to bring about some of the needed changes; the pursuit of accountability being one. We were proven wrong. In 2008, many genuinely bought in to the promise of change, and thus far, they've been let down.


These experiences are disheartening, surely, but they are also eye-opening. I do see many vigilant activists who continue the fight. As long as that's the case, there is hope. More people realize that real change will require not replacing one or two or three, but many more. More people are coming to understand that the road to achieving government of the people passes through a Congress, but not the one currently occupied by the many crusty charlatans who represent only self-interest --- achieved by representing the interests of the few, rather than the majority of the people of this nation. And so I write.


Here I go again, rather than ending this in a long paragraph or two, I will let another long-gone man do it shortly and effectively: "If we have Senators and Congressmen there that can't protect themselves against the evil temptations of lobbyists, we don't need to change our lobbies, we need to change our representatives." - Will Rogers


==


Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator and noted whistleblower who has been under a years-long "gag order", prohibiting her from discussing many details of her allegations of corruption and espionage gleaned during her time at the FBI, due to the continuing "States Secrets privilege" assertions by the Executive Branch. Her own story has been partially documented over the last several years in several different media outlets, including a lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes [15], a detailed feature in Vanity Fair [16] and, over the years, in a number of exclusive articles here at The BRAD BLOG [17]. She is the Founder and President of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. [18]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article printed from The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com


URL to article: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7117


URLs in this post:
[1] results: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0708/p...uspo.html.com/
[2] revelations: http://static.cqpolitics.com/harman-3098436-page1.html
[3] article: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
[4] reported: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...r-turkey-2009-
04-10.html
[5] article: http://amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00016/
[6] scandal: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...l_officia.html
[7] scandal: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/...son/index.html
[8] scandal: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1740900.shtml
[9] scandal: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/wa....html?_r=2&hp
8;ex=1160020800&en=a3fbb0550d8f4163&ei=5094&partne r=homepage
[10] SCIF: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=55745,00.asp
[11] FBI's pursuit: http://www.nswbc.org/Press Releases/PressRelease-March5-07.htm
[12] reported: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...549069,00.html
[13] dropped: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...e_dropped.html
[14] agendas: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/articl...orter-goss-fin
ger-jane-harman
[15] lead story on CBS' 60 Minutes: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in526954.shtml
[16] feature in Vanity Fair: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9774.htm
[17] articles here at The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com/?cat=58
[18] National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.: http://nswb.org


Trust your instincts, know the feeling.sm
Even scarier, some people (sheep) will believe this.
Your link did not work. Hey, I don't trust either one of them.

The choices suck.  But I think Obama could do the least harm, begin facing the pay off of debt to china and rebuild the military, bring the kids home and let them get on with their lives before they are jaded.


Sam, honestly, I want this country to thrive and I mean you too as I am guessing you are a middle income American.


You are not going to find the perfect president.  Lower your expectations and focus on your wallet.  Remember how good you feel with a huge savings?  And remember how you feel (most can) when the CCs are maxed?  Well, the credit cards are maxed.


The young people want Obama.  We already blew it for them.  Give them what they want since they will suffer the most from the events during the course of the last 8 years.  If you are over 45, your have reached your peak.  They deserve a life equal to ours.  We owe that to them and we cannot let policiticians and wealthy delusional people take the country out from under them.  They deserve that much. Don't you realize the children know what is going on?  The felonious activity, the sexual indiscriminations, the lies, the deviousness - all by paid elected public officials who are already paid decent wages. 


Now the country is a mess and the leaders are to blame.  If you want to give up your quality of life so the Iraqi people have the ability to vote ::rolls eyes:: they most probably ended up dead or refugees in a long line of them, heading for Syria.


Something stinks in the republican party.  I cannot put my finger on it but my best guess is that it has been hijacked by ruthless businessmen.  My thought is, get the party straightened out and then return to the race in 2012, repubos. You religious folks surely see the lies and feel the disappoint.  Along with the insecure feeling just knowing that your leaders have their own agenda and making the country stronger (and not AL queda weaker) was not on their list of things to do.  A heist of historic proportions have taken place and you repubos need to face up to it and find better leadership in your communities.  Democrats are pretty solid from what I am seeing.  They keep each other in check along with the media with the exception of Fox news, of course, the GOP propaganda machine.  This isn't about you people, this is about the kids.


Well, I don't trust any politician anymore
It seems they're only out to rip us off. As soon as I heard of this "buying" votes, the idea of the O  coming so quick from nothing to president elect and was from Illinois gave me the idea that he bought his seat. I've been watching the news and maybe that's what they do in Illinois without realizing it's wrong. After all, there have been so many politicians from there that have been indicted for political crimes, I'm thinking that it's a natural way of doing "business" there. Even the governor  doesn't think he did anything wrong. Are they a different country and we don't know it?
O is for what "change"? Change we cant trust, plus
nm
So you'd rather he trust Bush with the information
xx
Yeah, I would NEVER trust Obama to be our
nm
It is sad that you have a candidate you cannot trust or respect!
We accept your jealousy of our candidate, who we truly believe in and unequivocally support, as the highest compliment!

It is a shame that you can't experience the incredible feeling of hope and excitement for the future of the United States, as millions of Americans do, with Barback Obama.

Vaya con dios, Barack!
American voters do not trust

the fact that this is a real "crisis".  Don't want to allow Bush to force congress into another debacle like the funding for the war before he is dragged from the WH kicking and screaming.  McCain is asking for time out so he can rest and catch his breath.


 


Go ahead and trust Obama, then.
nm
Can you say violation of public trust?
Can you say hypocrite? Attack dog under fire. How sweet it is.
Trust me, you aren't helping yourself here..(sm)
All you are doing is putting a big bulls eye on your back.
I don't think we'll ever get the trust back
with the choices we  have now.  I blow hot and cold with Obama.  I am not happy that he is buddying up with so many of the Clintons.  OTOH he seems to be getting right to work on the issues.  What he will actually do when he has the authority to make decisions remains to be seen.  One can only hope.  I agree with you, the only way we will ever get change is when we fire the whole dang bunch of them and start over but how on earth will we do that when we have such ridiculous arguments going on all the time?  Maybe if times get hard enough enough people will be able to smell the coffee and have enough of the 2 political party system and we can get a majority who demand change.
Cant trust anything Moore puts out there
nm
I trust President Bush just fine, thanks. sm

Have a great 4th!


Don't you wish ? Issue is character, trust, loyalty and
What about the rest of the list. Again, question is what does this kind of repeated behavior spanning ?many years say about a man's character, especially one who now implores a nation to admire his character, trust his judgment, believe he is loyal to his porported "cause" and that he respects women...the votes he now seeks
Yeah, I don't trust Obama's character
nm
How can you trust him otherwise? He could be purposely disrespecting our flag (sm)
as a sign to those he truly sides with that he is on their team. The mere thought that someone could be elected to be our President while refusing to accept our flag is just insane! Do you have any idea how good we have it in America compared to other countries? Do you want to become a third world country? Do you know how possible it is?
'd trust a Moslem in the office over a bigot
nm
Respectable? Hah! He hasn't even earned trust yet!

Give it a few months for the media orgy/love fest to end then the scandals will begin (quite a few already).The dems are already at each other throats....this is gonna be good!


W puts money in blind trust It's been 8 yrs since
but claims he lost money in the meltdown.  Guess economics was/is not his strong suit.  This makes me wonder if his economic advisors were ever able to dumb down their reports enough for W to be able to understand them.  Just 6 more days, praise the Lord. 
I dont care for Hillary, but would trust her as
nm
I didn't need this info to NOT trust congress......our
x
trust me...you're playing right into the media's hands.....sm
thinking exactly what they want you to think about her.

Doesn't surprise me a bit.
I wouldn't trust Madeline Albright any further than I can throw her. nm
nm
Hitchens asks "What Reason Do We Have to Trust the State

to Know Best?


What Reason Do we Have to Trust the State to Know Best?



 


Christopher Hitchens


 


Although I am named in this suit in my own behalf, I am motivated to join it by concerns well beyond my own. I have been frankly appalled by the discrepant and contradictory positions taken by the Administration in this matter. First, the entire existence of the NSA's monitoring was a secret, and its very disclosure denounced as a threat to national security.


 


Then it was argued that Congress had already implicitly granted the power to conduct warrantless surveillance on the territory of the United States, which seemed to make the reason for the original secrecy more rather than less mysterious. (I think we may take it for granted that our deadly enemies understand that their communications may be intercepted.)


It now appears that Congress may have granted this authority, but without quite knowing that it had, and certainly without knowing the extent of it.


This makes it critically important that we establish an understood line, and test the cases in which it may or may not be crossed.


Let me give a very direct instance of what I mean. We have recently learned that the NSA used law enforcement agencies to track members of a pacifist organisation in Baltimore. This is, first of all, an appalling abuse of state power and an unjustified invasion of privacy, uncovered by any definition of national security however expansive. It is, no less importantly, a stupid diversion of scarce resources from the real target. It is a certainty that if all the facts were known we would become aware of many more such cases of misconduct and waste.


We are, in essence, being asked to trust the state to know best. What reason do we have for such confidence? The agencies entrusted with our protection have repeatedly been shown, before and after the fall of 2001, to be conspicuous for their incompetence and venality. No serious reform of these institutions has been undertaken or even proposed: Mr George Tenet (whose underlings have generated leaks designed to sabotage the Administration's own policy of regime-change in Iraq, and whose immense and unconstitutionally secret budget could not finance the infiltration of a group which John Walker Lindh could join with ease) was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.


I believe the President when he says that this will be a very long war, and insofar as a mere civilian may say so, I consider myself enlisted in it. But this consideration in itself makes it imperative that we not take panic or emergency measures in the short term, and then permit them to become institutionalised. I need hardly add that wire-tapping is only one of the many areas in which this holds true.


The better the ostensible justification for an infringement upon domestic liberty, the more suspicious one ought to be of it. We are hardly likely to be told that the government would feel less encumbered if it could dispense with the Bill of Rights. But a power or a right, once relinquished to one administration for one reason, will unfailingly be exploited by successor administrations, for quite other reasons. It is therefore of the first importance that we demarcate, clearly and immediately, the areas in which our government may or may not treat us as potential enemies.


 


Look....any president of the United States is going to trust people to do their jobs...
he trusted FEMA to do their jobs. He trusted that Blanco and Nagin were listening to what the weather experts were telling them and what the corps of engineers were telling them...they asked for the evacuation to be mandatory a full 24 hours before Nagin made it mandatory. A very precious 24 hours. So it was impossible to get people out. Can we possibly lay the failure at the feet of all responsible?

And as i said...would have taken the post a lot more seriously had the poster not made the "baker" comment at the end. It lost all credibility at that point..but of course, I am sure that escaped you.

And what any of this has to do with John McCain, whose birthday it was, having a piece of cake...he was a senator at the time. So was Obama. I figure he had a meal that day, and maybe even some cake.

This is a nonissue. There are a bazillion reasons why Katrina was such a disaster. One, the corps of engineers had been telling local and state officials for years that the levees would not hold if there was a big storm. Good lord, the whole town is below sea level!! Which, incidentally, is not Bush's fault either.

But NONE of these things have ANYTHING to do with JOhn McCain. Nice try to link it to him...but no.
Don't agree. We trust God for Wisdom, Strength, and health in our govenment.....sm
BUT that does not mean that there should not be a separation in church/state. We can trust in the Lord and pray for our nation, but is is up to us, as keepers of this nation, to work hard, to strive to appoint the right people, to try to defend the constitution, not just in war, but in peace. By becoming a UNITED nation once again, because we are being destroyed more quickly from within....the terrorist are loving it and will not have to do much to make this nation fall, if we do not use wisdom, discernment, and love, once the whole economy has collapsed and there is more and more crime, chaos, despair, etc., there won't be much the terrorists will have to do for our downfall...and there won't be much to gain from this country, either, if it sinks that low, IMHO