And especially used for those who show no remorse for these crimes.
Posted By: Democrat on 2006-07-17
In Reply to: So are you against the death penalty? sm - Democrat
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
For those who show no remorse, SM
They should never see the light of day again. Never.
Voter's remorse....sm
Does anyone know anybody who regrets who they voted for?
My husband was talking to his 25-year-old son the other day on the phone, and they touched upon the election. We know for a fact that he was an Obama supporter in the summer. He has also been in college for over six years, and acts like he's been brainwashed sometimes, by all his college professors.
Be that as it may.....DH asked DS who he voted for. DS hesitated for well over a minute....finally said he voted Libertarian. DH asked him who the Libertarian presidential candidate was, as DH said he didn't remember....DS said it was...Ralph Nader.....(who was Independent, not Libertarian...)
Now, we are fairly certain DS lied to his father about who he voted for. Why he lied, we are not certain about. Could be he just didn't want to admit to his father that he voted for Obama, because quite frankly, all the way through to November, he couldn't even coherently tell us why he supported Obama, just the familiar hope and change line, with no real substance as his usual reply.
Anyhoo.....then I got to thinking, that maybe he really wished he hadn't voted for Obama, but still woudn't tell his father that......still don't know for sure....
Interesting, though, to say the least.......
That rapist scum shouldn't have provoked her......he had no remorse - he'd do it again...nm
x
Just goes to show the j@ckas@es/crooks running the show!
nm
Beck says - almost every show - that he is NOT doing a news show.
He does an opinion show - meaning HIS opinion. As such, he's entitled to stick pins in little Obama dolls for all I care.
I can hear Chris Wallace laughing at you folks from here because it's pretty obvious whoever wrote that knows zip about Beck, or Wallace for that matter. In fact, I can't think what Wallace has to do with Beck anyway. Everyone of INTELLIGENCE who watches Beck and Wallace is perfectly aware that one does one type of show and the other does another.
But what do you expect from one of George Soros' puppet sites like Media Matters and Move Bowels.org?
You really should delete your Favorites list and start over.
Why Bush should be tried for war crimes....(sm)
A very good case I think.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28740622
Yup, probably a byproduct of his war crimes!
x
they should be prosecuted for war crimes
Are they above the law and above reproach?
B Clinton was not impeached for sex crimes
To say he was impeached for "sex crimes" does the justice system a dishonor and is completely false. It also implies that he didn't do anything wrong and he was just impeached for having an affair (it tries to make it sound like he did nothing wrong and everyone was after him).
For all those who have forgotten, he was impeached for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
First there was travelgate, next was Vince Foster being shot then investigators being denied access to Foster's office however Clinton's aides entered within hours after he was shot and documents were removed. Then there was James & Susan McDougal, failed loans, alleged legal activities at Madison Guarantee, Webb Hubbell, Vernon Jordan, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky (which led to his lies) oh yes, and when asked why he had the affair he said "because I could" (not because I love her or even because I care for her or even because she's hot - no, "because I could?"). Then his lies led to Hillary lying and AL Gore lying. Then Bill lying more "That depends on what the meaning of is is", etc, etc. There were 11 impeachable offenses against Bill Clinton. That is Eleven of them. So to just say he was impeached for sex crimes is a false statement and does a disservice to the judicial system. This was one of the worst presidents (imo) and he was disgraced the office of president. Richard Nixon did not even have as many articles to be impeached for. The worst offense however was that he was not removed from office.
Petition for Bush War Crimes
We the undersigned citizens of the United States hereby formally petition you to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in War Crimes.
These crimes are being euphemistically referred to as "abusive interrogation techniques" by such respected figures as Senator John McCain. These are euphemisms for torture. Torture is a War Crime. Waterboarding is a War Crime. The CIA has admitted waterboarding detainees. Recently, Vice President Cheney has brazenly admitted authorizing the program that led to waterboarding, other forms of torture too numerous to list, and ultimately, the deaths by homicide of detainees.
As Major General Antonio Taguba, the Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has stated:
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
The Washington Post recently summarized the Senate Armed Services Committee Report on detainee treatment thusly:
A bipartisan panel of senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.
We the undersigned citizens demand a full and thorough investigation immediately upon your taking office. This investigation should be pursued no matter where it may lead and no matter what the political implications may be. To this end, we remind you that you work not on behalf of or for the President or the Congress, but for the People of the United States of America and for Justice itself.
The United States is a representative democracy. The actions of our government officials are done in the name of its citizens. War Crimes have been committed in our name. Torture has been done in our name. The only way to clear our name of War Crimes is to repudiate them through the aggressive prosecution of each and every person involved to the full extent of the law through the appointment of a Special Prosecutor.
Yes, BASH BUSH - he should be tried for war crimes!!
He put us in this mess - the SOB should be tried for treason, corruption and war crimes. Oh wait, he probably has a layer of insulation between him and Scooter Libby. Huh.
"War crimes will be prosecuted"...(sm)
Guess who said that?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30464632
HATE CRIMES BILL......
The Hate Crimes Bill S.909 (HR1913) will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. Now, since so many think that ONLY has to do with "protection" of homosexuals, then you are fooling yourself. It's time you get involved in your country. Now read this carefully and for those that think Obama is such a saint, tell me why he would support this bill..... Please read ALL before you start bashing!! Sad to think our president would approve of such perversion....
Among those sexual orientations being protected by S.909 (and HR1913) are these:
Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee
Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman
Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces
Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification
Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body
Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks
Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex
Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas
Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse
Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person
Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either
Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation
Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement
Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls
Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing
Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine
Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity
Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals
To protect a "sexual orientation" under S.909 (and HR1913) - while leaving that term undefined -- is to protect this whole range of bizarre sexual behaviors. It is to normalize by federal law what are still considered to be mental disorders (paraphilias) by the American Psychiatric Association.
Hate crimes bill
I haven't had time to read your link yet but just wanted to interject an opinion from someone effected by the bill. I have seen state level hate crime legislation in action. What I've seen happen is that a capital crime is reduced, basically, to a crime of passion offense and punished as a 2nd degree offense instead of capital murder (big difference between 12-20 and life). For this reason, I've been totally against the hate crimes bill. While gay hysteria exists in crimes against us, I don't think it should be able to be used as a defense in order to get reduced sentences. Friends have tried to explain that the hate crimes bills were created to try to prevent that from happening but I have not seen that. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Probably both. See posts above about hate crimes
//
If Bush, etc were not guilty, why do they need a War Crimes Act protection? sm
Why would you need to seek protection if your not ALREADY sure you are guilty?
They must be scared. Could charges be just around the corner? I am going to assume it isn't just about authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, this also about 911/false-flag ops, Wanta's fund and many other charges they are soon to face.
Bush's Answer? Change the War Crimes Act!
August 29, 2006
Retroactive Laws Invoked to Protect Administration Officials from War Crimes Prosecution
Bush Turns His Terror War on the Homeland
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
When I was a kid John Wayne war movies gave us the message that America was the good guy, the white hat that fought the villain.
Alas, today the US and its last remaining non-coerced ally, Israel, are almost universally regarded as the bad guys over whom John Wayne would triumph. Today the US and Israel are seen throughout the world as war criminal states.
On August 23 the BBC reported that Amnesty International has brought war crimes charges against Israel for deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as an integral part of Israel's strategy in its recent invasion of Lebanon.
Israel claims that its aggression was self-defense to dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Yet, Israel bombed residential communities all over Lebanon, even Christian communities in the north in which no Hezbollah could possibly have been present.
United Nations spokesman Jean Fabre reported that Israel's attack on civilian infrastructure annihilated Lebanon's development: Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month.
Israel maintains that this massive destruction was unintended collateral damage.
President Bush maintains that Israel has a right to protect itself by destroying Lebanon.
Bush blocked the attempt to stop Israel's aggression and is, thereby, equally responsible for the war crimes. Indeed, a number of reports claim that Bush instigated the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
Bush has other war crime problems. Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side by side with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The US Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crime charges under both the US War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.
President Bush and his Attorney General agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
One of Bush's changes would deny protection of the Geneva Conventions to anyone in any American court.
Bush's other change would protect from prosecution any US government official or military personnel guilty of violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits at any time and in any place whatsoever outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment. As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff observes, this change would also undo Senator John McCain's amendment against torture.
Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice says that Bush's changes immunize past crimes.
Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their President's attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel and civilian contractors from war crimes?
Apparently, the self-righteous morally superior American Christian public could care less. The Republican controlled House and Senate, which long ago traded integrity for power, are working to pass Bush's changes prior to the mid-term elections in the event the Republicans fail to steal three elections in a row and Democrats win control of the House or Senate.
Meanwhile, the illegal war in Iraq, based entirely on Bush administration lies, grinds on, murdering and maiming ever more people. According to the latest administration estimate, the pointless killing will go on for another 10-15 years.
Trouble is, there are no US troops to carry on the war. The lack of cannon fodder forces the Bush administration to resort to ever more desperate measures. The latest is the involuntary recall of thousands of Marines from the inactive reserves to active duty. Many attentive people regard this desperate measure as a sign that the military draft will be reinstated.
According to President Bush, the US will lose the war on terror unless the US succeeds in defeating the Iraqi terrorists by establishing democracy in Iraq. Of course, insurgents resisting occupation are not terrorists, and there were no insurgents or terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded.
Bush's unjustified invasion of Iraq and his support for Israeli aggression have done more to create terrorism in the Muslim world than Osama bin Laden could hope for. The longer Bush occupies Iraq and the more he tries to extend US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, the more terrorism the world will suffer.
Bush and the Zionist/neocon ideology that holds him captive are the greatest 21st century threats to peace and stability. The neoconized Bush regime invented the war on terror, lost it, and now is bringing terror home to the American people.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Hope they bring charges against him for war crimes.
I wonder if there is any member of the GOP who is able to accept these realities and own up to just a fraction of this despicable behavior? His inevitable legacy as the worst US President of all time does not even begin to address the justice he deserves.
OBAMA has already put in motion AND END TO BUSH'S WAR CRIMES sm
Bush committed war crimes and Obama on day one of his presidency has already put in place measures to stop the crimes. Be proud because these are issues that affect human rights for all of us.
Read up, do your research, see what Amnesty International says... be PROUD now instead of ashamed to be an American! We are on the road to recovery, albeit a long road but at least Obama has us on track.
So glad we have people against hate crimes now
and anyone who thinks they can do as the KKK did years ago will have other repercussions. People are not putting up with that crap anymore- I know you might have some "groups" who talk big but as far as the hate crimes done in the past such as lynchings, beatings, etc. and people afraid to take action and turning their heads- those hateful, terrible things that over ran our country in the past are just that, things of the past.
Bush's war crimes are being corrected by the Wonderful BARACK!!!
Republicans recoil at the thought of us preserving human rights around the world.
I haven't reviewed the Hate Crimes bill....... sm
but I believe it is a load of horse manure. Murder, rape, etc., are hateful crimes and should be punished to the full extent of the law regardless of a victim's sexual orientation. A human being is a human being.
However, I believe that this bill pertains to more than just murder. It apparently protects persons with various sexual orientation from being spoken against in any way. A good example would be the thread below concerning gay marriage. Heterosexuals would or could be prosecuted for speaking out against same sex marriage. Preachers could be prosecuted for teaching what the Bible says in church if it speaks against a protected group's characteristics. At least, that is my understanding of the bill.
The fact that Obama is standing, pen in hand, ready to sign this bill speaks volumes about him and his agenda. If passed, I shudder to think what will become of America. Prostitutes on every corner, flashers running loose in the parks where our children play, pedophiles allowed in schools and daycare where young children could fall prey to their lasciviousness.
But, hey, it does also protect heterosexuals! LOL
Federal Grand Jury Digging Deep into Bush Crimes
PRESIDENT INDICTEDFEDERAL GRAND JURY DIGGING DEEP INTO BUSH CRIMES
By Greg SzymanskiA federal whistleblower close to the Chicago federal grand jury probe into perjury and obstruction charges against President Bush and others said indictments of top officials were handed down this week. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois, however, refused to confirm or deny the source’s account.
“We are not talking about any aspect of this case, and our office is not commenting on anything regarding the investigation at this time,” said Randall Sanborn from the office of U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the attorney conducting the grand jury probe into whether Bush and others in his administration violated federal law in a number of sensitive areas, including leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media.
In December 2003, Fitzgerald was named special counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name to several mainstream columnists, but the present grand jury probe has expanded to include widereaching allegations of criminal activity as new information has surfaced.
Although the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures, based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
According to whistleblower Tom Heneghen, who recently reported on truthradio.com, Powell testified before the citizen grand jury that Bush had taken the United States to war based on lies, which is a capital crime involving treason under the U.S. Code. “Regarding the Powell testimony, there is no comment,” said Sanborn.
However, sources close to the federal grade jury probe also allegedly told Heneghen a host of administration figures under Bush were indicted, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin. Heneghen, unavailable for comment, also allegedly told sources White House advisor Karl Rove was indicted for perjury in a major document shredding operation cover-up.
In recent weeks, there has been much controversy over Fitzgerald’s wide-reaching probe, which is extending far beyond the Bush administration to include what some have called “a wholesale cleansing” of a crimeladen White House and Congress.
Fitzgerald’s investigation is said to be also centered on members of the 9-11 Commission, members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate and also select high-powered members of the media.
Needless to say, administration officials are “fighting mad” with Fitzgerald. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts is trying to derail Fitzgerald’s probe by calling him to testify before the Senate regarding his true motives behind the investigation.
Political observers are now wondering whether administration-friendly Republican legislators, some under investigation themselves, are conspiring like President Nixon did in Watergate with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an attempt to shield the Bush administration from prosecution.
In late July, reports about the recent bomb scare in the subway under the congressional offices at the Dirksen Building—coincidently near where Fitzgerald was holding his grand jury hearings—raised questions as to whether government operatives were sending the zealous prosecutor a “warning message” that he was entering dangerous waters with his investigation.
The bomb scare was reported to local police late Monday afternoon, July 18, causing the subway to be evacuated for approximately 45 minutes while bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT team members searched for what was reported to be “a suspicious package” left on one of the subway cars.
Fitzgerald began serving as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2001. He was initially appointed on an interim basis by former Attorney General Ashcroft before being nominated by Bush.
The Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent in October 2001. In December 2003, he was named special counsel to investigate the Plame case. Based on the testimony of ABC sources in late July, it appears that at least two close associates of Rove testified before the grand jury. One was Susan Ralston, a longtime associate of Rove and considered to be his right hand.
The other was “Izzy” Hernandez, regarded as Rove’s left hand and now a top official in the Commerce Department.(Issue #33, August 15, 2005)
Saw the show. It was a guest on the show....
not a commentator. Why don't you post the link to the clip so everyone can decide?
Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
This subject is not old, and is very, very relevant.
Obama's friends/associates (supposedly former friends and associates, only since this campaign):
Ayers
Wright
Dorhn
Michelle
Khalidi
The company he keeps:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=
I find it very, very troubling, that this man has no visible friends, other than the ones above (not Michelle, although she has been kept under lock and key out of public sight for some time now, so as to keep her from embarrassing herself again).
Does this man not have any other friends/associates, other than the ones above?
poor black men in jail for drug crimes while his wife steals from a medical charity. nm
nm
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
Other addicted Americans aren't putting people in jail or ripping apart families for drug crimes.
nm
Thought crimes, secret formulas, secret votes, motherload databases, "no lists?"
don't let the door hit you on the way out. The silence from the peanut gallery speaks volumes.
I know most of it's for show
But how does she get on TV saying things like she did about Jewish people? How does she sleep at night after saying something like that? She just gets more and more outrageous just to get a reaction - and yeah sometimes it works because what she says is hateful. I have no problem with anyone giving their views, but she's hateful about it and that is what I have a problem with (and no, as I've said before I don't condone hateful things on either board)
goes to show
even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Just goes to show you that you need to ...sm
have an inquiring mind and not take as gospel what is spoon fed to you by either party. I particularly like the "fact checks" on both party's candidates. The perception is that we American voters are fools and will believe anything we are told.
Show me a pic
I can't find a pic with a lump on his jaw.
show me
show me refusal to acknowedge - I haven't seen it.
Goes to show you - sm
McCain is concerned about the people. Obama is concerned about himself.
McCain was absolutely right on the spot when he said there needs to be an investigation, just as there was when 9-11 happened, we need one now for this crisis.
One more plus to show McCain is interested and will work for us, while Obama....well Obama is for Obama.
Once again....goes to show
how people who get their tail feathers all ruffled after someone personally attacks an Obama supporter on the board, but they have no problem calling McCain supporters names and personally attacking them by stating they lack intelligence.
Look in the mirror....your hypocracy is showing.
Don't believe it. Show me. nm
.
You show me anywhere where he said...
95% of American workers WHO PAY TAXES. SHOW me where it says that. But, supposing that is what he means...there are still that 30-40%. Those people pay taxes. Then they get deductions and credits. They get back every dime they paid in and THEN some. They are part of that 95% who "pay taxes." Got it? And about 30-40% of the working public fall into that category. so it is back to square one. Yes, they "pay taxes." Taxes are deducted. Then they file. They get the deductions and the credits and whatever (I am talking about NOW). They get back every dime they paid in. These people technically "pay taxes." If you work one day a year and have deductions, you "pay taxes" and will be included.
I understand that you don't see it. I understand that you are filling in the blanks that he left open. I don't see it the way you see it. He is counting on people seeing it the way you see it. So be it.
YOu can yell BOGUS until you are blue in the face. I will yell NAIVE just as loud.
"He is assuming it is understood." Well, he is hoping that everyone will understand it the way YOU understand it. I am not so enamored of him that I cannot read between the lines. And frankly, as BOGUS as my line of thinking appears to me, YOURS is naive at best. So we will agree to disagree. If he went on television and told you tomorrow that he was going to cut checks to people who don't pay taxes because it is the right thing to do, you would be on this board defending the decision tomorrow night.
You show me where he says it is not.
You assume it is not. I assume that it will be. Based on everything his history is, based on everything he has said, including starting at the BOTTOM. Just where do you think Mr Obama perceives the bottom to be? What is your assumption on that?
Please show me where....(sm)
Obama has said that he will "give to those who would not [work]." And by the way, does that include Social Security?
OK show me
Where does it say the Secret Service blames McCain/Palin?
There were people who spoke about potential threats to Obama before he even became the Democratic candidate. To act now like it's all because of McCain and Palin stirring them up is ludicrous.
Bigotry is out there. Or do you honestly believe no one would have noticed that Obama is an African-American?
I don't like her either, but she has every right to be on the show
I don't like Ann Coulter at all. I think she's obnoxious and arrogant. But then again I don't like the View. I think it's filled with old "has been" housewives and mothers who just sit and gab and give their opinion and put down anyone who doesn't agree with them (i.e. anyone who is not a liberal). I watched the View a couple times and there was nothing interesting or entertaining about it. If they don't like a guest they won't even look at them (Joy Bear (or however you spell her last name) is such a pig! - I can explain and prove that in another post if anyone is interested). Anyway...for anyone to come out and say there is no reason to have someone (no matter who it is) on their show is a bit Nazi-ism. Who are you to say who they should have on and who they shouldn't. Her opinion of Barbara Walters is just that, her opinion. I didn't see the show, but when she said that I'm sure she was jumped on by the others. None of them can stand any person who is not a liberal and they try (and I use the word loosely), try to ridicule them. Luckily it doesn't work. From my understanding of what I've read on this board and elsewhere is that Ann Coulter says things to inflame others. She says things for what they call "shock value". I'm sure Barbara Walters is a big girl (I like Barbara Walters - just can't stand the others on the show), but Barbara is a big girl and can stand up for herself. She's smart and a quick thinker so I'm sure she had an intelligent comeback. But as for Ann Coulter saying things, that's just the way she is and they all know that and knew well before hand that she would most likely do that. Besides they do have a script they follow to some degree with questions prepared ahead of time and what they say and how they plan to cut down a non-liberal.
But for you to come out and say there is no reason to have such a person featured on TV? That is a bit too Nazi-ism for me. Everybody deserves to go on whatever show they want to. Her views have no value? According to you and other liberals they may not, but there are others who like her and would like to hear her interviewed. And certainly the View wanted her on the show otherwise she would have not been there.
I'm just glad your not in charge of who is allowed to go on what shows, or what books we can read (burn all those you don't agree with) - sound familiar?
Just goes to show ya
Fringers can't recognize a clean election when they see one and don't have a clue what the word "mandate" means. Uninformed? You seem to have cornered the market on that one.
same old show
Don't fret.
We get the same old show no matter what party is in office. It is a continual ball game with Republocrats versus the Democans. It keeps the American sheeple amused, cheering and fighting for its favorite team while the big boys play games with the global elite, keeping the spectators slaves to their greedy ideas. Been watching this show too long.......
But it would at least show that he
was attempting to keep his promise whether he was overrun by congress or not. If that is the case, then let congress take the fall for it and we can vote those fools out as soon as we can. But for him to just go along with it after he made promises to us. The only reason Obama turned his back and broke his promises to the American people is so that he kept the support of the dems in congress.
For once, I want a president who will stand up to his party and the other party and say....you know what....I promised the American people and they come first because WE work for them. Instead we continue to get liar after liar in office with a government system that is more interested in how much money they can spend with our tax dollars.
All this does is show him, as you said...for what he is.
a corrupt power-hungry politician, just like the rest of them. "Yes we can.." uh, no, "Yes I can." And he certainly is...lol, priceless. As they have sown....so shall they reap. Problem is, we are going to have to reap right along with them. Thank all of you who so ill-advisedly cast your vote for this charlatan...(tongue firmly in cheek). Next thing you know he will be asking us all to work for nothing like British Airways did...LOL.
The show and Powell
I thought the show was wonderful and illustrated very clearly how bits and pieces of intelligence were selected and manipulated and turned into something they weren't. (They referred to it as a "Chinese menu" that the administration used to pick and choose from.)
I taped this show and watched it a couple times. As far as Powell is concerned, it did show how Powell's relationship with George Tenet began to disintegrate.
It further showed how Tenet was, at Bush's father's urging, kept as CIA director when Dubya took office, and all the events leading to his resignation. He was one of Dubya's sacrifical lambs. I guess Bush thought giving him the Medal of Freedom made up for that.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, said that Powell told him, "I wonder how we'll all feel if we put half a million troops into Iraq and march from one corner of the country to the other and find nothing."
Powell said, "I will forever be known as the one who made the case. I have to live with that." (That made me feel really bad for Powell, who I have always trusted and considered to be an honest, ethical man. His association with Bush really dragged him down, and his statement about having to live with that just tells me that he's still an honest, ethical man, the kind of man who had a spectacular military career, actually had the guts to go fight in wars himself, someone who truly IS Presidential material, someone who doesn't belong in an underhanded, lying, foolish administration like Bush's.)
The show also pointed out how if you are someone who works for this president and you discover something not right or in alignment with his "plans," if you tell him, you'd better be prepared to resign or be fired.
This show clearly illustrated how Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq, and all he needed was a reason, even if he had to invent a fictional one.
Again, I thought it was an excellent show, and if you ever have the opportunity to watch it or obtain a transcript of it, I would highly recommend it. 
Where did gt do that? Show me please because I can't find it.
It's COMEDY show
and the last I watched he was an equal opportunity offender....
I saw a show on TLC about this family...
To each his own, especially if you're footing the bill yourself, but this family is just uplain creepy. The children are all homeschool and virtually isolated from any other children other than another family or two who share the same nutty religious convictions. They even have their OWN church at home. The girls all wear these horrid sad-sack Little House on the Prairie identical plaid potato sack dresses that look like they were made from discarded curtains and when asked their only aspirations are to have lots of children and to be a mother. The boys also dress identically in little Leave it to Beaver short-sleeved dress shirts. It's called Full Quiver parenting, as in having as many kids as you get before you get to menopause or your uterus falls out, whichever comes first. I find the whole thing rather odd, but who am I to judge I suppose.
Again, please show me where I was disrespectful. Thank you.
Who is they?
|
