As I said below, he had been discussing Freakanomics, Democrat.
Posted By: AR on 2005-10-02
In Reply to: Media Matters...William Bennett Audio...sm - Democrat
And as I said below, need he have interjected that in every sentence in the conversation? The discussion was actually about abortion. The entire TEXT of the conversation is posted here. Also, this has been discussed on several talk shows and Freakanomics has been mentioned often and appropriately, but as I also said, there is no use discussing it further. There is no arguing with most on here about it, athough there was a glimmer of hope. Understand me, I am not dismissing his comments out of hand. I think he made a poor decision when he was making a point. However, do I think he did it deliberately and with malice and do I think he is a racist? Absolutely not. THIS is racism:
What, white isn’t a color?
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, October 01, 2005
|
Things like this amuse me as they show the absolute lunacy which now exists in some areas of our society. From Northeastern University:
After originally advertising for women of color only, the Women's Studies and Graduate Consortium's first Breaking Bread: Women of Color Dialogue was forced to open the doors of the Raytheon Amphitheater to all races last Saturday.
The event was meant to include only women of color during its first session from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., with the second session from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. open to the public. However, after protest from the Student Government Association (SGA), orders came from Provost Ahmed Abdelal that the event must remain open to all who wished to attend.
They were in violation of the nondiscrimination policy, said Michael DeRamo, SGA vice president for academic affairs. We're glad that everything turned out well and the people who wanted to go were allowed to attend.
He said although SGA appreciated what the program was trying to accomplish, SGA could not stand dormant while one of their senators was denied admission based on her race. OK, you say. Good deal. Now, check out the reaction:
I think it's a shame that one or two white students based on white privilege, a lack of awareness of racial issues and a lack of generosity of spirit complained to the office of the provost and were able, because they were white, to gain admission to the morning session that I was forced to open up, Chandler said. Only one white female student showed up and I welcomed her anyway, in addition to telling the audience to conduct themselves with integrity even though the presence of a white woman was unwelcome. Is your irony meter pegging out yet? Talk about Newspeak. Protesting discrimination is now lack of awareness of racial issues and a lack of generosity of spirit.
Protesting discrimination now apparently only belongs to 'people of color'.
Just as interesting is this group seems to believe it can solve racial issues without involving all the races.
Oh and the condescension was almost dripping when this person said I welcomed her ... even though the presence of a white woman was unwelcome.
Sounds like a stereotypical southerner in the immediate post-civil rights south, doesn't it?
|
Personal note: You won't see this in the MSM.
THIS is racist:
In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture. -- Harry Belafonte
THIS is racist:
He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black. -- California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage
THIS is racist:
I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities. -- Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the conscience of the Senate, in a letter written in 1946, after he quit the KKK.
THIS is racist:
I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. -- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, Inside The White House
THIS is egregiously racist:
I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America. Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess
And THIS is racist:
There’s some people who’ve gone over the state and said, ‘Well, George Wallace has talked too strong about segregation.’ Now let me ask you this: how in the name of common sense can you be too strong about it? You’re either for it or you’re against it. There’s not any middle ground as I know of. -- Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace (1959)
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
Freakanomics, Democrat, is NOT Bennett's book. sm
It you had read the entire article posted here and gone to Bennett's website, you would know that. But it's easier to just run with the first bone of information and negate the facts. If Bill Maher told Bennett to do that, he would make a fool of himself...yet again.
If one was to say that Bill Bennett believed crime could and should be reduced by abortion, then one could also argue that liberals who support abortion believe in and advocate black genocide.
Do they really want to go there...?
It's about the Freakanomics.
Bennett Fires Back Against Racism Charges
Saturday, October 01, 2005
WASHINGTON — Former Education Secretary William Bennett (search), harshly criticized by Democrats and repudiated by the White House for a comment he made suggesting that, in theory, crime would go down if more black babies were aborted, fired back at his critics Friday.
Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment (search), Bennett said.
Let me reiterate what I had hoped my long career had already established: that I renounce all forms of bigotry — and that my record in trying to provide opportunities for, as well as save the lives of, minorities in this country stands up just fine, he added.
The conservative author, columnist and talk-radio host touched off a firestorm on Wednesday when a caller to his Morning in America show postulated that if abortion were illegal, Social Security would remain solvent.
Bennett raised questions about the caller's premise, saying that according to that logic, the argument in the book Freakonomics — that allowing abortion reduces crime — would be equally valid.
Referring to the book's hypothesis, Bennett told the caller, I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.
Bennett continued: That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do. But your crime rate would go down.
Bennett's remarks on Wednesday earned him scorn from Democratic lawmakers.
He's assuming that if you did this immoral thing, it would bring down crime and that is a possible solution, Rep. Charles Rangel (search), D-N.Y., told FOX News. A good-thinking guy that is a former secretary of education could give the hypothetical that if you expose people to education, then you would alleviate the conditions that cause crime, he said.
It again raises the specter of the not-so-subtle politics of race represented by 'Willie Horton,' welfare queens and the conclusion that America would be better off if Strom Thurmond had been successful in 1948, said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
These are shameful words, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said on the floor of the House Thursday evening. Secretary Bennett's comments reflect a narrow-minded spirit that has no place within American discourse. These words do not give credence to the tremendously difficult past that African-Americans have endured. These words do not reflect the values of hope and opportunity for the future.
Asked for White House reaction to the remarks, press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday, The president believes the comments were not appropriate.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said of the White House comment: Not appropriate is wearing white shoes after Labor Day. These comments were reprehensible and racist.
Lautenberg was introducing a resolution in the Senate calling on the chamber to condemn Bennett's comments.
The Subtleties of Race Relations
Bennett was education secretary under President Reagan and director of drug control policy when President Bush's father was president.
In discussing crime and race on his show, Bennett later said those are topics that have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so in light of the situation in New Orleans.
Many in public policy have speculated about the slow response to Hurricane Katrina, which struck more than a month ago, by the federal government, with much of the blame laid at Bush's feet. Several suggestions had been made that the president's response was delayed because those suffering most in New Orleans were poor and black.
The latest rhetorical slams were expanded last week at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Conference when Rangel likened Bush to the late Bull Connor, the Birmingham, Ala., commissioner of public safety who had his workers turn fire hoses and police dogs on African-Americans demonstrating against segregation laws in 1963.
Rangel said Bennett, like Bush, could find solutions for impoverished black Americans if they bothered to address poverty issues.
If the United States spent nearly as much time on poverty as they did in Iraq, we could solve some of the racial problems, Rangel said, adding that he did not think Bush is racist like Connor but that the president's economic policies are so adverse to the questions of poverty that he was hoping Bush's indifference to the plight of black Americans would shake up the country the way that Bull Connor did.
On Thursday, Bennett, author of The Book of Virtues, told FOX News that his remarks were to be viewed from the specter of academia and philosophic argument.
To put forward a hypothesis, a morally impossible hypothesis, to show why it is morally impossible and reprehensible, seems to me is a standard way of talking about public policy and a standard way of teaching, he said.
The article posted is not the complete conversation. Ever hear of Freakanomics? sm
That has a lot to do with the conversation. As usual, the MSM left out significant parts of what was said. No surprise there.
YES we should be discussing this
We should discuss it until it is resolved. It has not been resolved yet as you can see. This is one of the major headlines in the U.S. Has the "possible" next President met the qualifications. There are lots of headlines going on around the world (India being the biggest right now), but here in this country American's are still waiting for answers. Yes we should be discussing and questioning until an answer has been given. Not by left-wing agencies like factcheck, MSNBC, CNN, etc but by the Supreme Court.
Next, if you don't know where my sources came from why are you calling them right-wing. One of them is NBC and that is "left-wing". Additionally I don't need to site sources because first, I'm not posting the articles. I'm posting headlines I read on the internet. This "post your sources" is getting way out of hand. In the past conservatives and independents have posted their opinions before and were told to give their sources. Tell me that makes sense?????? Do your own research. And second, if I did post sources, you have shown by your statement you are already going to say they are not credible. Anything that doesn't favor and drools over the O you and other dems will say it's not credible, so no need to site them. Look them up yourself. Might do some good to get a different opinion than the left-wing sites. If you think I made up these headlines, pulleese. If I could only write so well I'd be rich.
And what I don't find entertaining in this "left-wing" blog is the starry-eyed O followers cutting down every single thing out there. We on this page do not make this stuff up. This is coming from thousands and thousands of Americans all across the country (at least 100,000 for sure). The facts are that the supreme court will be deciding if he meets the qualifications. We will wait til then. So until then I don't find the lovefest for Obama amusing. And if you don't want to read people's differences of opinions I would suggest not coming here.
The people who are not interested in the truth are the ones who are afraid of the truth. The left-wing dems who try to cut down those with different opinions and call them all these names. Never once questioning anything. Just following the pack (I believe they are referred to as Sheople).
You said you "addressed this issue during the campaign.". My answer to that is "So what!" Does that mean because you have addressed that is the end to it and no longer to be talked about. This is one of the most important issues of our time right now (yes along with the other crisis' going on), but we're talking about a person who might possibly be the next president. If it was a republican getting ready to take office you'd be on this board every day wanting to discuss it. I think finding out whether this guy is qualified and if not, how in the world did he ever get this far (who covered up what) will be one of the biggest issues of time. And for someone who doesn't want to waste their time you sure wrote a long post.
This is not gossip. The supreme court does not involve themselves with cases of "gossip". There is validity to what is being brought forth to them. Otherwise they would not waste their time. They don't have time to hear every single case that is brought before them, but they know the importance of upholding the Constitution, and so do the electorals who will be voting. If he doesn't meet the qualifications he and the DNC have got some explaining to do.
Your comments about "right-wing rag sources" "so-called headlines" "ignorance in the fringe right's hate blogs" "Focks news". Goes to show how little you know about what is happening. And your statement that you "read and listen to numerous national and international sources on a daily basis" is laughable. Your comments show you clearly do not.
Your dose of reality is that this is bigger than you know, the Supreme Court will be hearing the case. There are at least 12 or more lawsuits going on. The O refuses to show the information and prove his eligibility (not sure how long he thinks he can get away with it - what's he going to do, defy the Supreme Court?). The cases are being presented by lawyers, judges, politicians, democrats, independents, republicans, whites, indians, chinese, and blacks. The people voting in December want the issue cleared up because if any of them have any doubt about this, they will not vote for him. That's the reality and that's what the dems (especially on this board) fear, and that is why the left-wing rags, TV stations, and radio stations won't talk about it.
As for the rest of your post I will not address because it is so long I didn't read the rest of it. The first two paragraphs and the first sentence of the third paragraph was enough for me to realize you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Maybe you should get a grip and read and listen to other stuff besides what the left wingers keep dishing out.
Discussing ideas is antagonistic?
I, personally, have been very respectful. If discussing ideas and having a dialogue with someone is antagonistic to you then I'm afraid you're in for a very difficult road in life.
today on radio, they were discussing
his own party is in controversy over flip-flops. disgusted almost with the whole lot of them. someone said government growth has been 60% in the last few years. Don't know about that, but upsetting story on medicare losing millions by having doctor's available info on line which, of course, has been abused. Some of these guys have been dead for years and so people have been using their id's and #'s to scam/order wheelchairs. oh well, we'll always have more taxpayers, right? The name of the game is money, and they are all to blame for this energy problem, alternative methods have been squelched for almost 80 years. We could very quickly find ourselves in a fine pickle if they shut off the tap over there and I don't put it past them. After all, we have already made them filthy rich, they won't need us anymore, especially with our losing economy. Indonesia and Viet Nam won't even accept american money. or so I heard a couple of weeks ago, not like I tried to spend any money anywhere! I strongly feel the need to become self-sufficient and I mean that on an individual level as well, think 1800's. our people are much too busy fingerpointing to get anything accomplished and I am sick of all the bickering and wastefulness. I really feel for the ones to come after us.
I agree. My husband and I were discussing that.
nm
I thought they were discussing sending them to Australia.
Did that change? I don't watch political channels, it just makes me mad.
My husband and I were discussing is that the upside of Obama as pres it that we will probably
x
Thank you Democrat
you are right. I'm wasting my time here.
Well said, Democrat! Well said.
Applauding. 
Thank you, Democrat
My fingers are crossed too, Democrat...I hope and pray for all of us that our country can repair itself..I have always been an optimist in life, until the last few years..Yes, I will think optimistically..with hope in my heart..Thank you for your post..you are so kind..
Same to you, Democrat!
Hope you had the best day ever! 
Thanks, Democrat.
I've been following this case and have written to the Governor in protest. Someone has to care about America's children. It's obvious this particular judge doesn't.
Thanks, Democrat.
He raises some very interesting points, doesn't he? I'm glad, too, that he wasn't fired. I wish somebody like him (or he) WOULD run for President because I'd vote for him, as well. After our invasion of Iraq, how DO other countries know they won't be next, and why wouldn't they want to protect themselves from an unwanted, uncalled-for American invasion?
We need someone who can straighten out America and make it a much better place and lead by example so other countries WANT to be like us, rather than having our form of *freedom* forced upon them.
No, actually that was DEMOCRAT.
You really need to stop obsessing on me, Nina. You've made your hatred of me known, but it's starting to get spooky. Please find another hobby. You're beginning to resemble a stalker.
At the very least, you might want to scan the board before accusing me of saying things I didn't. It will only take you a second, and you will appear to at least have some common sense and credibility if you do so. Right now, I seem to be your target, and your hateful obsession is quite transparent.
Have a lovely day, dear.
Thank you Democrat..
I have been trying to make 2 points about Churchill for 2 days but it is like free association here. I get everything and the kitchen sink back. As far as Coulter, I was just putting an article out there that I thought was humorous (intended only for liberals as it knew it would offend others and even the heading I posted was attacked) and somehow that morphed into I am attacking Coulter and defending Churchill. Talk about pretzel logic. Again, thanks for actually reading my posts and actually understanding what I said.
Thanks, Democrat.
I hadn't read the part where they included the US troops in the mix. What I read was that the Iraqi Prime Minister wanted amnesty only for terrorists who killed American soldiers and NO amnesty for terrorists who killed Iraqis. I felt this was a slap in the face to America, and that's the precise reason I'm so outraged over this.
It's interesting that you said that's what you *make of it.* Every time I've read something on this issue, I walked away just kind of scratching my head because I was unable to grasp an understanding of most of it. Even the bill itself that was voted on yesterday did nothing but express the *sense* of the Congress regarding this issue. How can it be so important to take up Senate time, including the debate and vote, when the end result is that they are EXPRESSING THEIR SENSE? Seems like a big waste of time to me and lends even more credibility to Harold Ford's view that it was nothing but a stunt.
What I don't understand is why 19 Republican senators would publicly place themselves in the position of voting their *sense* that they were in favor of letting terrorists off the hook when it comes to killing our soldiers, given that the majority of Iraqis think it's okay to kill Americans.
I suppose some sense could be made of the reasoning behind it if we were dealing with terrorists/insurgents that could be trusted, but with 65% of the general Iraqi population thinking it's okay to kill Americans and 88% of the Sunni population believing so, I don't feel comfortable placing any trust in them.
Democrat
I do not and did not excuse Mark Foley. He was wrong. What I have a problem with, is the same people who ask for his head are the same people who excuse the same behavior in Democrats who have done the same thing. Barney Frank...male prostitution ring out of his apartment. Not sure all of them were of legal age. Representative Studd. Had a sexual relationship (not internet) with a 17-year-old page. Not only not apologized for it, but accused critics of gay bashing and that his relationship, with a 17-year-old, mind you...was consensual. These are Democrats, and Democrats did not ask for their heads. But they ask for Foley's head. I am not excusing ANY of them. I find it odd that Democrats do not recognize a pedophile when he is a Democrat, but recognize him when he is a Republican.
No, extramarital affairs are not illegal. PERJURY is. In all 50 states. I didn't hear any Democrat, NOT ONE, asking for HIS head.
I can say without a doubt that they were ALL wrong, all morally corrupt, and all should pay for it. Clinton didn't, Studd didn't, Frank didn't. Foley IS. There is another BIG difference.
Same to you, Democrat! sm
Merry Merry Christmas and God Bless.
I am sorry, Democrat...I just don't get it....
You guys jump to champion Teddy when she has attacked me over and over, just like you claim some conservatives have attacked you...but it is okay for her, keep up the good fight. I am sorry, but that only tends to reinforce the feelings of most conservatives that liberals walk in lock step and support each other right or wrong. Please explain to me how it is okay for Teddy to call me a fool, tell me she cannot talk to someone who is mentally ill, has no common sense, that I defecated upon her...to name a few. Why is that okay for her, and you come along rah rah Teddy, and then complain when conservatives post similar, but not nearly as hateful...posts? Can you please explain to me why that is okay? Because, actually, in looking at your posts, you seemed a reasonable person and not prone to attacking anyone. Is it that same old well, I wouldn't do it myself, but if she wants to do it, I will support her thing?
Thanks Democrat..
Good to have yet another point of view. I have been reading Rabbi Kushner's Book, Overcoming Life's Disappointments. He uses the Old Testament (obviously) and Moses. What I really love about this guy is his working knowledge of so many faiths other than his own and how he can find, quite easily, the similarities...anyway, one thing I found interesting was that he said (and I certainly did not know) the Torah has 613 commandments and more of these deal with the poor (spiritually, physically, financially poor) than any other issue. Then along comes Jesus and what does he say??? My gosh, I think it is the same thing!!! I wish that some of the really right religious people (Dobson, Falwell, etc. could team up with Rick Warren, Al Sharpton, TD Jakes, Pope Benedict, Rabbi Kushner et al) and look at the issues that the Bible addresses other than abortion and same-sex marriage. The most mentioned virtue, it would seem, would be humility and the willingness to serve God by serving others, especially the least among us, no questions asked. In the Old Testament taking care of those in need was an obligation, not charity.
Democrat here
I do check in to see what's going on here once in a while but to be honest all the republican propaganda and lies disgust me. Thank God the majority of the country isn't buying into it.
I'm a democrat!!!!!!
And I am not one of the two that you say have posted here. But I am proud to be a dem!
I'm a democrat
I havent attacked anyone on here. I have no problem with the republicans. It takes both parties to run this country. I do feel that we have gotten off on the wrong track and I do feel that Bush has not done a great job. I dont feel that way specifically because he is a republican but because I just dont feel that he was the best guy for the job.
I will vote for Obama. If I had more choices, maybe I wouldnt vote for him. But McCain worries me and I feel that given my opinions of him, I have no choice but to vote for Obama.
I am a democrat
I did not vote for Obama. I have a question for those that did. Do you read the articles from Reuters and other papers from other parts of the world? Do you watch foreign news? Because I do. I have found that you cannot get the real picture just by relying on our news media and papers. If you want to get a true overview of what is going on, you have to go outside of us. Have you not read/heard the news on O? He does want to make our kids join some sort of community service organization. He stated that would be mandatory. He did have associations with people of a sordid nature that goes contrary to US benefit. And the minute that someone, anyone, posts something that they have read or heard about that man, people become angry and defensive. I am sorry that you all voted for O. Can you not see what is happening? Hitler was elected into office during a democratic state. I am not saying that O is Hitler, what I am saying is that someone with such extreme ideas has been elected to the highest power and there are many signs pointing to the fact that we are going to see some changes that even those that voted for him are not going to like. I think it will be subtle, until one day people are like, what happened to us? Also, McCain and Palin did not win, so let them be! I mean come on already, you guys won, let it die. I have never seen one person have such a following and a following that is so mean spirited. 
Duh! Wow, a democrat is saying that?
nm
I am and have always been a democrat, but
I don't agree with this at all. I guess I agree more with Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' stance. I also don't like how the whole 'gay movement' has attached itself to the Democrats. We need Democrats in power to help get us out of this economic nightmare created by the republicans, and this is distracting & costs us votes every time.
You might want to recheck that Democrat. sm
gt wished death on George Bush far below and again above! Not only that, she wished some pretty terrible things on Laura Bush and the daughters. Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't so. The thing is, there are two boards. Nan and AG don't come here. Get the picture?
Hi, there, Democrat!!! Nice to see you again!
With respect to the 10% tax, I still think $9,000,000 of disposable income goes a lot farther than $9,000, and 10% of $10,000,000 is just a drop in the bucket, compared to 10% of $10,000.
Anyway, my understanding of the "Fair Tax" is that it isn't based on income. It's based on "consumption." It's (my paraphrasing) a federal sales tax instead of a federal income tax. And spending up to the poverty level is tax-free, with their "fair tax rebate."
So if someone can afford to buy that 2006 Ferrari, they can also afford to pay the tax. If someone can only afford a $500 1989 Mitsubishi, they will probably not have to pay any tax if it is considered under the poverty level.
This only addresses federal government tax issues, though. It doesn't even begin to touch state, county and local taxation.
And from what I've read, I haven't heard what percentage of tax they are proposing.
So I'm still not sure which I'm leaning towards. I'm actually sort of swaying between the 10% and the "fair tax."
Nice to see you here, thanks for the invitation, and I agree. We should debate here.
Wow, Democrat. I expected more from you. SM
 It gets personal because it's made personal. How you can't see that, I am not quite sure. As for your statement elsewhere that AG and I had left before, nope. Sorry, didn't happen. I didn't say I wasn't coming back either. Anyways, how much more personal can you get than wishing someone to die, and I am not talking about the president. It happened but the posts are gone. We all responded to the person who told Nan she was old and going to die and burn in hell. So I guess that's not personal, huh? Tell me how many times you have seen one of us do that. As far as debate, we give as good as we get. I thought you knew that, but guess I was wrong yet again. Oh well, live and learn!
In all honesty, Democrat. SM
How can you castigate someone for being on the liberal board when you are on the conservative board. Just pointing out a little pot-kettle scenario. Like Brunson, I won't be posting on here anymore. And like Brunson, hopefully you will return the favor. Have a nice evening.
Now Democrat, you know that isn't true. sm
And again with the "lock step", an allusion to Hitler and Nazis. Just can't help it, can you? It was posted on this board the conservative board by at least two conservative posters what they did not agree with Bush on, plus I posted it myself above. So not true.
That's yellow dog DEMOCRAT to you.
Yellow dog DEMOCRATS. Get it straight.
Democrat tried and true
LOLOLOLOLOLOL..I guess now Im being told by a conservative basically what I am, LOLOLOL..Oh, how sad..Sweetie pie, I know what I am and it is a living and breathing LIBERAL DEMORACT..and Im passing the word around the country (through the local democratic club) and I have so far converted two republicans to become democrats..So, geez, I guess Im your worse nightmare..YEEHHAAWW!!
Well, he was a Democrat. What would you expect?
Johnson didn't have a haves, have-more, elite base like Bush bragged about having. He just cared about normal everyday people. How I miss those days. 
Oh pshaw Democrat
You and I both know that anything I had to say would be blasted right out of the water, I would be called a racist, A LIAR, my entire family would be wished to burn in hell, and the list goes on. One simply cannot argue or reason with people on this board.
Very true, Democrat.
I predict though that Tillman and his entire family will be ripped to gossipy shreds by the Con pirhanas and his mom written off as a liar with a socialist agenda before the story is over with. That's how they operate, we've seen it over and over again. You can sort of set your watch by it.
Yes, Democrat, didn't you
on how many care packages you send? NOT! Your very patriotism is at stake here...possibly even your soul during the rapture! LOL! Can you say superficial? These people think that supporting the troops consists of sending them junk food and cigarettes and plastering *W* stickers on their 6-mile-a-gallon SUVs, while soldiers die on a daily basis so they can wave their little flags. Little minds that need to keep things so simple...just like their bubble-brained leader....waaaaaaaaaaaay too much cocaine, booze, and Kool-Aid.
Agree with you 100%, Democrat!
I haven't responded to some of the proposterous posts from the last couple of days because I have heard and responded to the same old worn-out shreiking arguments before. I do commend YOU, though, for your typically thoughtful, well-reasoned, logical replies. Thank you.
I agree entirely with you that in Iraq we have created a laboratory for even greater anti-American rage and don't see the threat going away if we continue on the same course. And what can one say for the following but be very afraid for this country, especially since Addington is one of the 2 who replaced Libby. May God forgive us.
Vice President for Torture
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; A18
VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is aggressively pursuing an initiative that may be unprecedented for an elected official of the executive branch: He is proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans. Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners is banned by an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the United States. The State Department annually issues a report criticizing other governments for violating it. Now Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit such abuses against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad. In other words, this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.
His position is not just some abstract defense of presidential power. The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have disappeared, like the victims of some dictatorships. The Justice Department and the White House are known to have approved harsh interrogation techniques for some of these people, including waterboarding, or simulated drowning; mock execution; and the deliberate withholding of pain medication. CIA personnel have been implicated in the deaths during interrogation of at least four Afghan and Iraqi detainees. Official investigations have indicated that some aberrant practices by Army personnel in Iraq originated with the CIA. Yet no CIA personnel have been held accountable for this record, and there has never been a public report on the agency's performance.
It's not surprising that Mr. Cheney would be at the forefront of an attempt to ratify and legalize this shameful record. The vice president has been a prime mover behind the Bush administration's decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military. These decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington, was reportedly one of the principal authors of a legal memo justifying the torture of suspects. This summer Mr. Cheney told several Republican senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.
The senators ignored Mr. Cheney's threats, and the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), passed this month by a vote of 90 to 9. So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy. The Senate's earlier vote suggests that it will not allow such a betrayal of American values. As for Mr. Cheney: He will be remembered as the vice president who campaigned for torture.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Maybe not, democrat, but the one below this by gt was aimed at vs.
and it was typical gt.
No, she's not the one posting under democrat. That would be me. And...sm
the most of us on the liberal board do not buy *impending doom* theory that you live by. I don't think America would cease to exist with John Kerry as president, but that's a whole nother argument.
Hope you had a wonderful holiday, and BTW when I posted the Happy Thanksgiving post it was meant to be a warm greeting to all concerned, and the response from the republican poster was smug and an in a *in your face* sarcasm if you look at it from a liberal perspective.
His exact words, *And I'm so thankful we have a REPUBLICAN president....pretty cool huh?*
Well to you and Pathguy, I think it would be good if we had a TRUSTWORTHY, COMPETENT president, but if REPUBLICAN is all that matters then pat yourselves on the back again and have a blessed Christmas :)
Democrat, I think it's a lost cause.
I think it works like this: Apparently when you reach a certain level of Christian understanding (perhaps like Bush where he has the power to look into souls, i.e. Putin) you can judge the validity of someone else's faith (Christian or otherwise) in spite of the fact that you've never even met them and know them only from a few posts on an internet board about politics. And then you see, it is their duty in the process of insulting your understanding to try and save your wretched little soul that's going to burn in hell anyway. Yup, got it figurrrred out.
So you're actually a Democrat!
Oh, sorry! It's just that critical thinking is so rare among those on the right it NEVER occurred to me that demonstrating a lack of it would place you anywhere else. My bad:) Unless, of course, you really are right of center, in which case I was spot on and no apology is necessary after all. Subject resolved!
Hope you will Democrat!
He really laid it out. One has to wonder, where was THIS Al Gore six years ago? Better late than never I suppose.
Yes, I agree with you, Democrat, on all you said.
Where did you go? No apology for Democrat?
I agree, Democrat.
This isn't the Christian Jesus I was brought up to believe in!
This is my problem, Democrat.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that I don't trust this President as far as I can throw him. He has a long history of going after and *Swiftboating* anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with his policies. Anyone who disagrees is *fair game* (including their families) and severely punished as a result (Valerie Plame).
He admittedly has proven he has no respect for the Constitution when he said it's only *a *** **** piece of paper*. (I'm not allowed to post it here in its entirety because of the vile profanity he used when describing the document he took an oath to uphold).
If I felt my President was an honest man with integrity who could be trusted with the safety of Americans, I wouldn't have one single problem with this. Not one. In fact, I'd be relieved that such surveillance was going on, and I would feel a little safer.
The very LAST thing I feel under President Bush is safe, and I feel less safe and more invaded each and every day.
Democrat, see message
First article is from last week in Editor and Publisher regarding USA Today founder, Neuharth, once a Bush supporter.
Al Neuharth Bashes Bush, Says His Supporters are 'In Denial'
By E&P Staff
Published: May 04, 2006 11:30 PM ET
NEW YORK USA Today founder Al Neuharth, once known for his generally Republican views, appears to have seen enough of President Bush. In his column today for USA Today, he once again hits the Iraq war (he is one of the few mainstream journalists to favor a quick withdrawal), then notes the presient's approval rating having plunged from 71% to 34% in the Gallup poll since 2003.
How low can Bush's approval rating go? My hunch is it's at or near the bottom, he suggests. That 34% represents mostly unshakeable far-right wingers. Like Bush, Vice President Cheney and company, they are in denial. As were the 24% in the polls who still approved of President Richard Nixon before he resigned in disgrace.
What happened to the 37% who have switched from pro-Bush to anti-Bush? They finally realized they were suckered by Bush and his buddies back then about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, his tie to terrorists and his threat to the USA.
Neuharth, a decorated war veteran, concludes: President Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: 'You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.'
SECOND ARTICLE: Editorial from USA Today which I think sums it up pretty well. Indeed, *trust us* just doesn't cut it anymore; it's the old *fool me once, etc.*.....
NSA has your phone records; 'trust us' isn't good enough
Fri May 12, 6:52 AM ET
The government is secretly collecting the phone records of millions of Americans.
Stop and think for a moment about the meaning of that simple, startling fact, exposed Thursday in a remarkable report by USA TODAY's Leslie Cauley.
In the narrowest interpretation, of course, it is benign. Possibly even helpful. It means that the National Security Agency (NSA) - the Pentagon-run spy agency that monitors communications - is using a new tool to hunt terrorists: Monitor phone traffic to identify threats and stop them.
This is all it means, President Bush told the public Thursday in a brief appearance aimed at quelling the instant outrage provoked by the story. He assured Americans that their civil liberties were being fiercely protected and that the government was not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.
In other words, never mind appearances. Trust us.
Well, that is not all it means. Nor can the president's promise to protect privacy be reliably kept.
The fact that the government is trying to track (but not wiretap) every call you make and every call you receive - at home or on your cellphone is, to say the least, disturbing.
It means that your phone company (if you are a customer of AT&T, BellSouth or Verizon) tossed your privacy to the wind and collaborated with this extraordinary intrusion, and that it did so secretly and without following any court order.
That is, unless you're lucky enough to be served by Qwest, the one major phone company that had the integrity to resist government pressure.
It means that unless public opposition changes the government's course, this database will be compiled, updated and expanded into the indeterminate future, through countless administrations with who-knows-what interests and motives.
Only the most naive and unsuspicious soul could trust that it will remain safe, secured and for the eyes only of those hunting terrorists.
One need look no further than past abuses of power to be uncomfortable about the future. Richard Nixon during Watergate. Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. J. Edgar Hoover during his long reign as FBI director.
Even assuming that the Bush administration's motives are pure, and that this program merely looks for patterns of calls that could reveal terror networks, it raises a number of troubling questions:
Is it legal? Bush insists it is, but that's questionable. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires a court order to gather a person's current phone records. A 1934 law requires phone companies to protect customers' privacy. And the Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures.
Is it useful? Taken as a whole, such a database is of dubious utility. U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies are already suffering from an abundance of raw information and a dearth of good intelligence. Looking for suspicious patterns among billions of phone numbers seems like the ultimate search for a needle in a haystack.
Is it foolproof? These types of databases invariably have errors. The federal terrorist watch list, which is used to screen airline passengers, has ensnared a number of innocent travelers - among them Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., and a 23-month-old toddler - whose names are similar to, or the same as, suspects on the list. Once you're mistakenly targeted, the error can be nearly impossible to fix and your life can be turned upside down.
Will it be abused? Maybe not at first. Over time, however, this vast quantity of data is a potentially irresistible tool for government officials who want to zero in on individual Americans.
At the very least, one can imagine this information being used by law enforcement agencies trying to trace people who have attracted their attention but about whom they don't have enough information to justify a court order. Or to look for whistle-blowers who have leaked sensitive information to reporters.
Consider what happened in the 1960s and '70s, the last time federal law enforcement and national security agencies launched mass snooping expeditions against U.S. citizens. The FBI, which became a clearinghouse for the data, sent them to the CIA, the Justice Department and the IRS, where some of the data were used in tax probes.
Information that should not have been gathered in the first place has gone beyond the initial agency to numerous other agencies and officials, thus compounding the original intrusion, concluded a committee chaired by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, which investigated and reported on the abuses in 1976. The amount of information was so voluminous, it was difficult to separate useful data from worthless detail.
NSA's technological capabilities, the Church Committee wrote, are a sensitive national asset valuable to the national defense. Even so, it warned, if not properly controlled ... this same technological capability could be turned against the American people, at great cost to liberty.
The panel's conclusions about NSA are as valid today as they were then.
The phone record program serves as a powerful reminder of how, in a digital age, records can be compiled and analyzed in ways you are unaware of.
And combined with a separate NSA program (revealed in December by The New York Times) to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls from the USA, it raises the question of what other secret and constitutionally suspect programs the Bush administration might still be shielding.
Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA for six years and is now Bush's nominee to be CIA director, is a master of evasion. Speaking in January about the international eavesdropping, he said the program is not a widely cast drift net but is narrowly focused and targeted.
Perhaps. But, at the time, he was fully aware of a program that is many of the things the other is not. A 2006 version of the Church Committee is needed to investigate the anti-terror programs created in the scary aftermath of 9/11, and the Senate should hold up Hayden's nomination until all its questions are answered.
Creating a huge, secret database of Americans' phone records does far more than threaten terrorists. It is a deeply troubling act that undermines U.S. freedoms and threatens us all.
The White House declined to provide an opposing view to this editorial.
Not your defensiveness, Democrat.
It's like watching a gang of street thugs mug someone. I'm sorry it happened to you this time. You didn't deserve it.
But as you can see, they've redirected their hateful venom in my direction, so hopefully they'll leave you alone.
Where did I put that Raid???
|
