He's right on the mark about the martial law thing....
Posted By: And we can all thank the Obama lovers!!! sm on 2009-03-04
In Reply to:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGM8kWMV6Kd2LoM80UvPXeeBJkqAD96N3GCG0
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
He's right on the mark about the martial law thing....
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iGM8kWMV6Kd2LoM80UvPXeeBJkqAD96N3GCG0
Martial law here in US
Scary, and very eye-opening as to what CAN and WILL happen on American soil if the circumstances are right. Here's a few tibits of what I experienced first hand in Gulfport, MS after the storm
Phones - My house phone worked after Katrina! I called my boss (who was in lockdown at the hospital) to see if all was OK there. But within a few hours, when the authorities started flooding in, my phone didn't work any more, and didn't again for weeks. When my phone DID work, if I tried telling anybody some of the stuff below, my phone suddenly went dead for the rest of the day.
Restricted areas - Walked down to the beach right after the storm. Most everything gone, and any debris wasn't worth stealing. So why did they string barbed wire for miles down our beach for our "safety"? Something they didn't want us to see, I presume.
Resources - We started getting told on the radio that there was no gas or food, and to stay home and off the roads. The media and military could get all the gas and food they wanted - but they guarded it with guns to keep the citizens from having it. They managed to get generators for hotels and restaurants that were exclusively for the use of "important" people - no citizens allowed. The same soldiers drove up and down my street all day and all night (between the court house and the fire house) at twice the legal limit and nearly ran me down if I didn't get out of their way.
Curfew - Both my kid and I worked at 2nd shift "deemed necessary" jobs - me at hospital, her at Walmart (although her store was heavily guarded against the citizens, who were told it was too damaged to reopen, she was working and the store was open for important folks like media and local officials). We had to have our work badges with us at all times or we weren't allowed to go anywhere. We were stopped every single night at check points coming home from work. If we forgot something in our car and went to leave the house and get it, a soldier offered to shoot us if we left our porch.
Our only news and instructions came via battery powered radios or those in vehicles (when we were allowed to go to work), and most of that was lies to keep us home and quiet. These are just a few of the things I experienced. At the time I was horrified, and I realized that the majority of us have NO CLUE what can and will happen right here in the USA.
Martial law plan?!
Things are really getting delusional now. Bush is probably counting the days til he can get out of there and let it be someone else's problem.
I don't think Bush is going to declare martial law....
even he is not enough of a cowboy to do that. Besides, his mom and dad would kick his butt if he tried...lol.
I believe McCain will remain in the race...and I am VERY interested in seeing who his running mate will be. Maybe that is the plan...he gets the "right kind" of running mate, and then just a little ways into the term he retires due to health issues and the VP becomes the Pres. You never can tell what politicians are thinking. However...more and more every day I am more and more convinced that Obama is not the right man for the presidency, especially at this time. I don't think he has enough experience, especially in foreign policy, and his little trip to Iraq has only made that feeling stronger. I wish I thought he was sincerely in the hope and change thing, but I don't believe he is. I believe he hopes there would be change, but I don't think he is talking about the American people. All that aside...at a gut level I don't trust him. And yes, I share a concern about the people who run him as well. I know who his advisors are, and...whoosh. I thought we got rid of them with the Clinton admin. The thought of a mixture of Clinton and Obama...that will make ya shudder.
Actually, I disagree a little with you, I do believe McCain cares about the American people. He also sticks to his principles and that has made him run afoul of the Repub Party from time to time. But I have to admire that...means he is not, as we used to say on the farm, "anybody's dog who will hunt with him."
Have a wonderful day, JustMe.
Martial law wouldn't surprise me. n/m
x
No - martial law discussed 9/18/09 - under Bush...
Sept.18: Congressional Leaders told US Economy Had Been Hours Away from Collapse
February 10, 2009, 4:32AM
A stunning video has surfaced of Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) describing Thursday September 18 when Bernanke and Paulson starkly informed Congressional leaders how close the economy had come to collapsing that day.
After $550 billion had been electronically drawn out of money market accounts and $105 billion had been poured back into the system with no effect, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury made the decision to shut down the money market accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account. Rep. Kanjorski:
If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o'clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. [via Magnifico at Daily Kos]
Again via Magnifico, The Motley Fool adds some background as well as a possible connection to martial law in The One Jaw Dropping Video that Every Fool Must See. Both Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif claim that Paulson brought up the possibility of a declaration of martial law.
The same article also revealed that a November 2008 Army War College Report discusses the possible use of the US military in the event of a domestic economic collapse.
Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security. Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse... are all paths to disruptive domestic shock. [p.32] Support for Kanjorski's claims can be found in archives from that time period:
Congressional Leaders Stunned by Warnings, NY Times, Sept. 19, 2008.
...as the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, laid out the potentially devastating ramifications of the financial crisis before congressional leaders on Thursday night, there was a stunned silence at first. Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had made an urgent and unusual evening visit to Capitol Hill...
Rushing to save money-market funds, CNN Money, Sept. 19, 2008
By Friday, federal officials worried that the strain on money-market funds had become too great and threatened the world's financial system.
As an aside, if all of this happened on Thursday, Sept. 18, why in the world did McCain wait until the last minute on the 24th to cancel his interview with David Letterman?
No - martial law discussed 9/18/08 - under Bush...
Sept.18: Congressional Leaders told US Economy Had Been Hours Away from Collapse
February 10, 2009, 4:32AM
A stunning video has surfaced of Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) describing Thursday September 18 when Bernanke and Paulson starkly informed Congressional leaders how close the economy had come to collapsing that day.
After $550 billion had been electronically drawn out of money market accounts and $105 billion had been poured back into the system with no effect, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury made the decision to shut down the money market accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account. Rep. Kanjorski:
If they had not done that their estimation was that by two o'clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy of the United States, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. [via Magnifico at Daily Kos]
Again via Magnifico, The Motley Fool adds some background as well as a possible connection to martial law in The One Jaw Dropping Video that Every Fool Must See. Both Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla., and Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif claim that Paulson brought up the possibility of a declaration of martial law.
The same article also revealed that a November 2008 Army War College Report discusses the possible use of the US military in the event of a domestic economic collapse.
Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security. Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse... are all paths to disruptive domestic shock. [p.32] Support for Kanjorski's claims can be found in archives from that time period:
Congressional Leaders Stunned by Warnings, NY Times, Sept. 19, 2008.
...as the Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, laid out the potentially devastating ramifications of the financial crisis before congressional leaders on Thursday night, there was a stunned silence at first. Mr. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had made an urgent and unusual evening visit to Capitol Hill...
Rushing to save money-market funds, CNN Money, Sept. 19, 2008
By Friday, federal officials worried that the strain on money-market funds had become too great and threatened the world's financial system.
As an aside, if all of this happened on Thursday, Sept. 18, why in the world did McCain wait until the last minute on the 24th to cancel his interview with David Letterman?
I've already experienced martial law on American soil
(I think the article is over the top, and wishful thinking by the author, BTW)
So, after Katrina in Gulfport, MS, here's what martial law was like:
1. When the troops moved in, they took over and started ordering us around like cattle. Offered to shoot us for even trying to ask 'em a question. Rude and mean to everyone. The skies were full of helicopters - felt like living in a MASH rerun. Jeeps raced up and down my street at double the speed limit, nearly running me over if I stuck a toe in the road. Nobody lifted a finger to help me clear the debris in my yard - in fact they were irritated that I dared set foot outside at all.
2. They commandeered any resource that was left, for the powers that be. They took over every airport, every gas station, every Walmart still standing, every hotel or restaurant that had a generator, jammed all the phone lines (and yes, folks, MINE STILL WORKED until the troops arrived, then suddenly it did not). All that stuff was appropriated for whoever they deemed important - the county officials, the media, rubbernecking senators they flew in. Woe unto you if you tried to get a drop of gas, a cold drink, or speak to anyone about why you could not - a gun gets stuck in your face.
3. Curfew makes you feel like a little kid when its given by your parents. It makes you feel like a criminal when its set by your government. Yeah, they offered to shoot me because I forgot something in my car and tried to leave my house to go get it. They had roadblocks on every corner. I worked at a hospital nights and daily had to show my ID just to get to work and back. People that didn't have a good reason to be out and about got turned back and threatened. They roadblocked all the highway exits to our town and turned away anybody that came offering help - saying it wasn't needed. Actually, they just weren't organized enough to accept donations or direct would-be heros where they could help - so they just turned them away, rudely. If you wanted to leave town after Katrina, forget it - they had taken all the gas away and didn't want us on the roads.
4. They sectioned off parts of our town with barbed wire and told us it was unsafe. Sorry, I walked through it right after the storm and knew it was no worse than the rest of the town. They threw residents that had survived the storm off their property and wouldn't let them come back without an armed escort and government permission. Sometimes they bulldozed their houses flat before letting them come back into the protected zone. All in the name of protecting them.
5. The majority of the soliders raced around acting important. Never saw any lift a finger to help anyone in any type of distress. I guess their orders were to stand around and wait for more orders, while intimidating us (obviously that's what the confused, scared, and needful survivors required from their government?). They also took over our local radio and had them tell us to just sit isolated in our houses and wait for help, and discouraged us from helping one another or traveling across town to help a friend. Nobody ever knocked on our door and asked us if we needed anything - so if I'd obeyed orders and believed help was coming I would have waited until I died. I suppose they wanted us to just sit there and die, so we'd be less hassle.
6. The only help we received were from average citizens brave enough to argue their way through the military road blocks. Not the government. Their function was to take over, snatch whatever comforts still existed, and isolate and scare us.
I was shocked I could be treated the way I was on American soil, and I realized it can happen anywhere to anyone, if and when the powers that be decide to take over an area for whatever reason they deem necessary. I suddenly realized this happens all over the world in wartime, when our troops move in to occupy their country - and I realized I felt like those people must have felt at the sight of the soldiers. Most people just don't think it can happen here - well trust me, it can and it does. Maybe next time, in your neighborhood.
I've already experienced martial law on American soil
(I think the article is over the top, and wishful thinking by the author, BTW)
So, after Katrina in Gulfport, MS, here's what martial law was like:
1. When the troops moved in, they took over and started ordering us around like cattle. Offered to shoot us for even trying to ask 'em a question. Rude and mean to everyone. The skies were full of helicopters - felt like living in a MASH rerun. Jeeps raced up and down my street at double the speed limit, nearly running me over if I stuck a toe in the road. Nobody lifted a finger to help me clear the debris in my yard - in fact they were irritated that I dared set foot outside at all.
2. They commandeered any resource that was left, for the powers that be. They took over every airport, every gas station, every Walmart still standing, every hotel or restaurant that had a generator, jammed all the phone lines (and yes, folks, MINE STILL WORKED until the troops arrived, then suddenly it did not). All that stuff was appropriated for whoever they deemed important - the county officials, the media, rubbernecking senators they flew in. Woe unto you if you tried to get a drop of gas, a cold drink, or speak to anyone about why you could not - a gun gets stuck in your face.
3. Curfew makes you feel like a little kid when its given by your parents. It makes you feel like a criminal when its set by your government. Yeah, they offered to shoot me because I forgot something in my car and tried to leave my house to go get it. They had roadblocks on every corner. I worked at a hospital nights and daily had to show my ID just to get to work and back. People that didn't have a good reason to be out and about got turned back and threatened. They roadblocked all the highway exits to our town and turned away anybody that came offering help - saying it wasn't needed. Actually, they just weren't organized enough to accept donations or direct would-be heros where they could help - so they just turned them away, rudely. If you wanted to leave town after Katrina, forget it - they had taken all the gas away and didn't want us on the roads.
4. They sectioned off parts of our town with barbed wire and told us it was unsafe. Sorry, I walked through it right after the storm and knew it was no worse than the rest of the town. They threw residents that had survived the storm off their property and wouldn't let them come back without an armed escort and government permission. Sometimes they bulldozed their houses flat before letting them come back into the protected zone. All in the name of protecting them.
5. The majority of the soliders raced around acting important. Never saw any lift a finger to help anyone in any type of distress. I guess their orders were to stand around and wait for more orders, while intimidating us (obviously that's what the confused, scared, and needful survivors required from their government?). They also took over our local radio and had them tell us to just sit isolated in our houses and wait for help, and discouraged us from helping one another or traveling across town to help a friend. Nobody ever knocked on our door and asked us if we needed anything - so if I'd obeyed orders and believed help was coming I would have waited until I died. I suppose they wanted us to just sit there and die, so we'd be less hassle.
6. The only help we received were from average citizens brave enough to argue their way through the military road blocks. Not the government. Their function was to take over, snatch whatever comforts still existed, and isolate and scare us.
I was shocked I could be treated the way I was on American soil, and I realized it can happen anywhere to anyone, if and when the powers that be decide to take over an area for whatever reason they deem necessary. I suddenly realized this happens all over the world in wartime, when our troops move in to occupy their country - and I realized I felt like those people must have felt at the sight of the soldiers. Most people just don't think it can happen here - well trust me, it can and it does. Maybe next time, in your neighborhood.
I've already experienced martial law on American soil
(I think the article is over the top, and wishful thinking by the author, BTW)
So, after Katrina in Gulfport, MS, here's what martial law was like:
1. When the troops moved in, they took over and started ordering us around like cattle. Offered to shoot us for even trying to ask 'em a question. Rude and mean to everyone. The skies were full of helicopters - felt like living in a MASH rerun. Jeeps raced up and down my street at double the speed limit, nearly running me over if I stuck a toe in the road. Nobody lifted a finger to help me clear the debris in my yard - in fact they were irritated that I dared set foot outside at all.
2. They commandeered any resource that was left, for the powers that be. They took over every airport, every gas station, every Walmart still standing, every hotel or restaurant that had a generator, jammed all the phone lines (and yes, folks, MINE STILL WORKED until the troops arrived, then suddenly it did not). All that stuff was appropriated for whoever they deemed important - the county officials, the media, rubbernecking senators they flew in. Woe unto you if you tried to get a drop of gas, a cold drink, or speak to anyone about why you could not - a gun gets stuck in your face.
3. Curfew makes you feel like a little kid when its given by your parents. It makes you feel like a criminal when its set by your government. Yeah, they offered to shoot me because I forgot something in my car and tried to leave my house to go get it. They had roadblocks on every corner. I worked at a hospital nights and daily had to show my ID just to get to work and back. People that didn't have a good reason to be out and about got turned back and threatened. They roadblocked all the highway exits to our town and turned away anybody that came offering help - saying it wasn't needed. Actually, they just weren't organized enough to accept donations or direct would-be heros where they could help - so they just turned them away, rudely. If you wanted to leave town after Katrina, forget it - they had taken all the gas away and didn't want us on the roads.
4. They sectioned off parts of our town with barbed wire and told us it was unsafe. Sorry, I walked through it right after the storm and knew it was no worse than the rest of the town. They threw residents that had survived the storm off their property and wouldn't let them come back without an armed escort and government permission. Sometimes they bulldozed their houses flat before letting them come back into the protected zone. All in the name of protecting them.
5. The majority of the soliders raced around acting important. Never saw any lift a finger to help anyone in any type of distress. I guess their orders were to stand around and wait for more orders, while intimidating us (obviously that's what the confused, scared, and needful survivors required from their government?). They also took over our local radio and had them tell us to just sit isolated in our houses and wait for help, and discouraged us from helping one another or traveling across town to help a friend. Nobody ever knocked on our door and asked us if we needed anything - so if I'd obeyed orders and believed help was coming I would have waited until I died. I suppose they wanted us to just sit there and die, so we'd be less hassle.
6. The only help we received were from average citizens brave enough to argue their way through the military road blocks. Not the government. Their function was to take over, snatch whatever comforts still existed, and isolate and scare us.
I was shocked I could be treated the way I was on American soil, and I realized it can happen anywhere to anyone, if and when the powers that be decide to take over an area for whatever reason they deem necessary. I suddenly realized this happens all over the world in wartime, when our troops move in to occupy their country - and I realized I felt like those people must have felt at the sight of the soldiers. Most people just don't think it can happen here - well trust me, it can and it does. Maybe next time, in your neighborhood.
Right on the mark.
It's simply unbelievable to me that Americans must hope for help from Hugo Chavez in a time of crisis while their own federal government is taking a long leisurely yawn while deciding whether or not help its own suffering people.
Never thought I'd see that day in America.
Mark 8:38
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles." ~~ Barack Obama
Your post is off the mark...
Your post doesn't make sense and is erroneous in many areas. Obviously you have never listened to the lyrics of the song and you are not familiar with the content of the Neil Young song it addresses. And I agree, it's a great rock and roll song lyrics aside, but I just can't always put those lyrics aside. I also never said folks from the south weren't intelligent - you implied that, not me. As for hating it up north, well, you're incorrect. Me and most of the community love it here. People often move south for various reasons, some monetary but quite often due to the weather.
By the way, do your black friends enjoy your waving the confederate flag (I hope you don't wave it literally, but one never knows) and loving George Wallace? Probably not.
By the way, I was born in Virginia and also lived in southern Indiana and have friends/relatives all over the south. I am also an avid student of the history of the south. So I am fairly well educated regarding the cultural, socioeconomic problems currently facing the south, albeit some parts regions than others. So you see, I am dealing with it and find the best to way to "deal with it" is to seek the truth.
You are so off the mark it isn't even funny
you are so incensed you are stating Jesus' political status like it was written in the Bible. I'm not talking to people who want to bash me....you don't even read my posts....goodbye.
Oy vey Mr/Ms. Question mark
You are so frightened by the term socialism - does it occur to you that at least the French citizens have not forgotten how to stand up to their government?
Please take just a moment and open your mind (that means turn OFF the Limbaughs out there)
Is this femnist off the mark? I think so...sm
First of all, there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING wrong with standing behind your husband. Did any feminists go bonkers when Hillary did it. To some degree this article challenges marriage.
****
Michelle Obama's sacrifice
It had to be hard for the high-achieving candidate's wife to give up her career -- and I'm in a feminist fury about it.
By Debra Dickerson
Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, speaks April 16 at a Women for Obama luncheon in Chicago.
May 21, 2007 | You knew it had to happen.
Damn it all, Michelle Obama has quit her $215,000 dream job and demoted herself to queen. Though the party line is that she's only scaled back to a 20 percent workload, I doubt her former co-workers will bother alerting her to many staff meetings. She's traded in her solid gold résumé, high-octane talent and role as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals to be a professional wife and hostess.
Now, the energy and drive that had her up jogging before dawn and a gratifying day of work and family will mainly be spent smiling for the cameras. Just as we watch curvy, healthy-looking singers and actresses like Lindsay Lohan become anorexic too-blonde hoochies before our very eyes, so we're now in danger of having to watch the political version of that process: Any day now, Michelle Obama's handlers will have her glued into one of those Sunday-go-to-meeting Baptist grandma crown hats while smiling vapidly for hours at a time. When, of course, she's not staring moonstruck, à la Nancy Reagan, at her moon doggie god-husband who's not one bit smarter than she is.
My heart breaks for her just thinking about it. Being president will be hard. So will being first lady for the brilliant Michelle -- imagine, having to begin all your sentences with My husband and I...
I'm in a feminist fury about Michelle (I'll use her first name to avoid confusion with her husband) feeling forced to quit, but make no mistake: I'm not blaming her. Few could stand up to the pressure she's facing, especially from blacks, to sacrifice herself on the altar of her husband's ambition. He could be the first black president, you know! Also, she must be beside herself trying to hold things together for her daughters. I'm blaming the world and every man, woman, child and border collie in it who helps send the message that women's lives must be subordinate to everyone else's.
No doubt her modern, progressive husband assured her she didn't have to quit -- probably even tried to dissuade her. It's also quite likely she's making this sacrifice so her children will have at least one parent available. But the result is the same. Our daughters grow up knowing that their freedom to work at hard-won, beloved careers hinges on the doings of their husbands.
Still, there's an opportunity in this setback. Now is the time for feminism to reach out to black women via the contingent of Obama-esque overachievers out there who ought to be chilled to the bone by Michelle's retirement from work of her own. Given Secretary Rice's, not to mention Oprah's, persistent singleness, black women who have earned high status may well wonder why they should bother trying to both date and develop successful careers if one's going to cancel out the other. No other group is less likely to marry. Given the innate conservatism of the black community, the burden to tend to hearth and home falls disproportionately on its women, sending the message to ambitious black girls that they can't have both fulfilling careers and families.
It would be one thing if Michelle had tired of working, but she's clearly ambivalent about leaving paid employment, as the Washington Post's recent coverage made clear:
Every other month [since] I've had children I've struggled with the notion of 'Am I being a good parent? Can I stay home? Should I stay home? How do I balance it all?' she said. I have gone back and forth every year about whether I should work. When she finally winds down her duties as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals in the days ahead..., she said, it will be the first time that I haven't gotten up and gone to a job. It's a bit disconcerting, she said. But it's not like I'll be bored.
No, you'll have your well-manicured hands full being your husband's hostess in chief. Funny how she didn't mention her husband's parental angst; there have been whispers that he's been pretty busy, too, what with being the great black hope and all. Wonder what finally made her decide to quit.
While I'm not blaming Michelle, I am issuing a challenge: This political and professional sutee won't end until women refuse to step into the fire, disapproval be damned. Sen. Clinton can't do everything: The rest of us women must stand our ground. Whatever else you think of Clinton, you can't deny that she blazed a trail for women's right to work and, like, be smart in public. And, man, what a beatdown she got. Since it was bringing about the end of the civilization as we know it, she caved, took her husband's name and gave up a public policy role; she had to wait, like a good girl, until her husband couldn't run for anything else. Valuable years of productivity, wasted. But at least giving up her career wasn't Hillary Clinton's first choice, as it is for most of the elite women who are abandoning their careers.
Linda Hirshman was an early observer of the phenomenon of top-tier women leading the retreat back to the kitchen. Following up a controversial article, Homeward Bound, with an equally controversial book, Get to Work, she harshly chastised elite, well-educated women for choosing not to work once they married high earners. Using census data and interviews, she argues that:
As a result of feminist efforts -- and larger economic trends -- the percentage of [working] women ... rose robustly through the 1980s and early '90s. But then the pace slowed. The census numbers for all working mothers leveled off around 1990 and have fallen modestly since 1998. In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are choosing to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism ... Among the affluent-educated-married population, women are letting their careers slide to tend the home fires. If my interviewees are working, they work largely part time, and their part-time careers are not putting them in the executive suite.
I am not saying Michelle Obama is just another member of the so-called opt-out revolution; clearly, her reasons for leaving her job are historic -- and even so, she clearly seems pained to do it. And I hate to add to Michelle's load, but even though she's made the choice to leave work, I hope she'll keep her role in women's history in mind and increase the tiny inroad political wives have made into something approaching women's freedom of choice. With her personal wealth (albeit obtained by marriage) Theresa Heinz laid some groundwork, speaking her mind on the campaign trail and generally refusing to be mealy-mouthed and dull. Kudos to Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean, too, for refusing to give up saving lives to chat up reporters on her husband's tour bus. But until more women who want to work feel free to do just that, they'll continue to be mere appendages of their men, and the American workplace will remain just as family-unfriendly as it is now.
What can Michelle do? If Obama wins, she should go for it and take on a meaningful public policy role, à la Hillary Clinton's healthcare work. Just a lot more carefully. Why on earth should such an accomplished woman just arrange white-tie dinners? Until then, she should become more outspoken, building on her husband's willingness to confront dysfunction in the black community -- a black mother can get away with what no one else could. Obama has chastised blacks for apathy, for crime, for equating achievement with acting white, for allowing their neighborhoods to deteriorate; Michelle's street cred as a churchgoing, round the way sister who made good makes her ghetto pass (her ability to operate as an insider) irrevocable. There will be no discussion of whether or not she's black.
Since the Obamas are liberals, Michelle is bullet proof. Anyone who dares to insult her with the same level of vitriol as has been visited on Hillary Clinton and leading white Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Dianne Feinstein will be trampled by a herd of black ministers, civil rights leaders and church ladies in big hats. (Condoleezza Rice doesn't get the same protection.) In a post-Imus world, any critiques of Michelle had best be worded very carefully. She could also build on her husband's interfaith pioneering with mainstream organizations to bring the resources of those well-endowed communities to bear on black problems.
Of course, black problems are really American problems; having the golden couple spearheading the fight will make it sexy to help blacks with their systemic problems (education and entrepreneurship, to name two). The two Obamas can de-race these issues (here is where she can use her fancy education) and help America understand that black progress is American progress.
Most important, though, I hope Michelle will bring feminism to black women.
Feminism is rightfully criticized for being irrelevant to black women and ignoring their issues. When it's not plain arrogant, that is. An excellent example of mainstream feminism's high-handedness is Maureen Dowd's recent petty bitching about Michelle's jabs at her husband on the campaign trail. She sounded like a 1940s white woman reprimanding a sassy black maid. But feminism's failure to engage with black women is only partly its own fault; black men have worked hard to reinforce the image of feminism as not just white, not just lesbian, not just a plot to make contented black women unhappy with their lot but also (as usual) a war against black men. This black male victimology has been so successful at changing the subject whenever black women complain that, 20 years after Anita Hill was successfully demonized as a tool of white feminists for daring to bring down a prominent black man, here's Michelle's tortured answer to the Washington Post's F-question:
You know, I'm not that into labels ... So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it, she said. I wouldn't identify as a feminist just like I probably wouldn't identify as a liberal or a progressive.
How difficult it must be for someone so whip smart and so famously blunt, according to insiders, to have to mouth these political pieties. But if we know nothing else about Michelle Obama, we know she's determined to live in the world the way it is, not the way it should be. But she's in a prime position to help change all that.
Now is the perfect opportunity for the movement to reach out to black women by embracing Michelle and black women's causes in general. Progressive women should be working their way toward the middle ground a political wife must occupy and politely engineer ways in which Michelle can put her postelection time, win or lose, to worthy causes important to the black community -- welfare-to-work, hiring and job training, for example.
But even as I seek silver linings, I'm still sad for Michelle. As the Times reports, She expresses no regret about scaling down her job ... where colleagues say she excels at tackling thorny problems. But this winter, after spotting a book on the Obamas' coffee table celebrating Mr. Obama's Senate victory, her staff created a matching volume of her accomplishments. Mrs. Obama wept when she saw it.
Problems don't come much thornier than this. You've got a right to sing the blues, Michelle, so go ahead and cry. Then take action.
I agree she is off the mark...
and most off the mark because who is she to critcize Michelle Obama's life decisions? She is a grown woman and fully capable of making decisions for her own life. It is that same old thing...if you don't fit into the *mold* you are fair game. It is, frankly, none of this woman's business what Michelle Obama does with her life, and if she chooses to change her career to supporting her husband's run for the Presidency and support her children through the process too, all I say is good for her. She is an adult and has made her choice and certainly does not have to answer to feminists for it. It is not unheard of for a woman to choose family AS a career at some point in her life, or as the career OF her life, and she is no less a woman, no less a person, for that choice. This gal sounds like a lot of other disgruntled feminists I have read or heard speak....railing against what they secretly wish THEY had. My guess is that Michelle Obama is much more comfortable with her life and her decisions than this gal will EVER be.
You're so far off the mark..........
@
I think you missed the mark again
did you mean could NOT get by? You actually type for a living?
Gov. Mark Sanford....(sm)
It seems this guy likes to go on "mystery vacations," not telling anyone where he's going and being unreachable. And this guy is a potential candidate for 2012? Oh boy. My guess is that he went on one of his "trips" because he was just beaten to death in court for trying to use stimulus funds to pay off state debt instead of using it for it's intended purpose, or course...that being after he tried to refuse it altogether. Yeah...let's put him in the White House. Then we could have a president that goes MIA. LOL.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/22/2009-06-22_awol_gov_sanford_has_south_carolina_in_tizzy.html
Isn't this the first time either of them has broken the 50-mark?
nm
Mark my words...this is a hoax!
All you have to do is look at the picture and see the backwards "B" on her cheek. By the way, she was working at a McCain/Palin call center just before this alleged attack took place.
Oh yeah...so how did you totally miss the mark? LOL
I know R. Bennett was Clinton's attorney at one time. Therefore I never said one word about partisan and never even tagged him as a Republican. Hard to know in that case what wide open moment you're referring to - care to share? Hehe.
Great Mark Morford article
The guy can write and he's right on as usual.
Fun Bits About American Torture
In many ways, the U.S. is now just as inhumane and brutal as any Third World regime. Oh well?
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, December 16, 2005
We do not torture. Remember it, write it in red crayon on the bathroom wall, tattoo it onto your acid tongue because those very words rang throughout the land like a bleak bell, like a low scream in the night, like a cheese grater rubbing against the teeth of common sense when Dubya mumbled them during a speech not long ago, and it was, at once, hilarious and nauseating and it took all the self-control in the world for everyone in the room not to burst out in disgusted laughter and throw their chairs at his duplicitous little head.
Oh my God, yes, yes we do torture, America that is, and we do it a lot, and we do it in ways that would make you sick to hear about, and we're doing it right now, all over the world, the CIA and the U.S. military, perhaps more often and more brutally than at any time in recent history and we use the exact same kind of techniques and excuses for it our numb-minded president cited as reasons we should declare war and oust the dictator of a defenseless pip-squeak nation that happened to be sitting on our oil.
This is something we must know, acknowledge, take to heart and not simply file away as some sort of murky, disquieting unknowable that's best left to scummy lords of the government underworld. We must not don the blinders and think America is always, without fail, the land of the perky and the free and the benevolent. Horrific torture is very much a part of who we are, right now. Deny it at your peril. Accept it at your deep discontent.
Torture is in. Torture is the tittering buzzword of the Bush administration, bandied about like secret candy, like a hot whisper from Dick Cheney's gnarled tongue into Rumsfeld's pointed ear and then dumped deep into Dubya's Big Vat o' Denial.
The cruel abuse of terror suspects is sanctioned and approved from on high, and we employed it in Abu Ghraib (the worst evidence of which -- the rapes and assaults and savage beatings -- we will likely never see), and we use it in Eastern Europe and Guantánamo and in secret prisons and it has caused deaths of countless detainees. And Rumsfeld's insane level of Defense Department secrecy means we may never even know exactly how brutal we have become.
Torture is right now being discussed in all manner of high-minded articles and forums wherein the finer points of what amount of torture should be allowable under what particular horrific (and hugely unlikely) circumstances, and all falling under the aegis of the new and pending McCain anti-torture legislation that would outlaw any and all degrading, inhumane treatment whatsoever by any American CIA or military personnel at any time whatsoever, more or less.
All while, ironically, over in Iraq, our military is right now inflicting more pain and death upon more lives than any torture chamber in the last hundred years, and where we have recently discovered the fledgling government that the United States helped erect in Saddam's absence, the Iraqi Interior Ministry, well, they appear to be so giddy about torture they might as well be Donald Rumsfeld's love children. But, you know, quibbling.
There is right now this amazing little story over at the London Guardian, a fascinating item all about a group of hardy hobbyists known as planespotters, folks whose solitary, dedicated pastime is to sit outside the various airports of the world and watch the runway action and make intricate logs and post their data and photos to planespotter Web sites. It's a bit like bird-watching, but without the chirping and the nature and with a lot more deafening engine roar and poisonous fumes.
These people, they are not spies and they are not liberals and they are not necessarily trying to reveal anything covert or ugly or illegal, but of course that is often exactly what they do, because these days, as it turns out, some of those planes these guys photograph are involved in clandestine CIA operations, in what are called extraordinary renditions, the abduction of suspects who are taken to lands unknown so we may beat and maul and torture the living crap out of them and not be held accountable to any sort of pesky international law. Fun!
It is for us to know, to try and comprehend. The United States has the most WMD of anyone in the world. We imprison and kill more of our own citizens than any other civilized nation on the planet. We still employ horrific, napalm-like chemical weapons.
And yes, under the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld regime, we abuse and torture prisoners at least as horrifically as any Islamic fundamentalist, as any terrorist cell, to serve our agenda and meet our goals -- and whether you think those goals are justifiable because they contain the words freedom or democracy is, in many ways, beside the point.
Go ahead, equivocate your heart out. It is a bit like justifying known poisons in your food. Sure mercury is a known cancer-causing agent. Sure the body will recoil and soon become violently ill and die. But gosh, it sure does taste good. Shrug.
Maybe you don't care, maybe you're like Rumsfeld and Cheney and the rest who think, well sure, if they're terrorists and if they'd just as willingly suck the eyeballs out of my cat and rip out my fingernails with a pair of pliers as look at me, well, they deserve to be tortured, beaten, abused in ways you and I cannot imagine. Especially if (and this is the eternal argument) by their torture we can prevent the deaths of innocents.
Maybe you are one of these people. Eye for an eye. Water torture for an explosive device. Does this mean that you are, of course, exactly like those being tortured, willing to go to extremes to get what you want? That you are on the same level morally, energetically, politically and, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, you are dragging the nation down into a hole with you? You might think. After all, fundamentalists terrorize to further a lopsided and religious-based agenda. We torture to protect ours. Same coin, different side.
It is mandatory that we all acknowledge where we are as a nation, right now, how low we have fallen, how thuggish and heartless and internationally disrespected we have become, the ugly trajectory we are following.
Because here's the sad kicker: Torture works. It gets results. It might very well save some lives. But it also requires a moral and spiritual sacrifice the likes of which would make Bush's own Jesus recoil in absolute horror. Yet this is what's happening, right now. And our current position demands a reply to one bitter, overarching question: What sort of nation are we, really?
Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.
Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate and in the Datebook section of the SF Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing. Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past columns, which includes a tiny photo of Mark probably insufficient for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts.
As if that weren't enough, Mark also contributes to the hot, spankin' SF Gate Culture Blog.
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/12/16/notes121605.DTL
©2005 SF Gate
Mark Fiore's Minister of Fear sm
This is a little old, but a funny short animation on Homeland Security's fear-mongering.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0428,fiore,55135,9.html
Mark my words, it won't be six months before the world
tests Obama like they did John Kennedy.
"Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
-- Joe Biden
Is Biden saying that America's current enemies - sorely aware of Obama's inexperience - plan to test a President Obama with similar crises, to see what he's made of?
I guess we all know how JFK's test turned out. "Bay of pigs" ring any bells.
Biden has also commented Obama's inexperience and said the job of the Presidency "does not lend itself to on the job training." He's also said Obama's "going to need help."
Well, I guess 'ol Joe has his foot in the door and that's all he really wanted. I don't believe he's changed his mind about our new President Elect. I think he saw his way into the White House and jumped on the bandwagon.
Great! We've got a totally inexperienced, slick snake set to run this country and the man who knows Obama will fail, has announced the Obama will be tested and fail, and probably wants Obama to fail, so he can come out smelling like a rose.
Well, buckle up. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Bush wants to 'leave his mark' on his term in office.
He'll probably do his best to continue skrooing up this country right down to the very last seconds he is officially able to sign anything.
Did you notice the question mark at the end of the article's title?
Do you understand the meaning of "potential?" Imagine that. Judges have a "natural predisposition" toward complying with the DEMOCRATIC WILL OF THE PEOPLE. What a crazy and novel idea.
The truth has been out there for quite a while now. There is no THERE there. This is sheer lunacy, but hey, knock yourselves out. Nobody's listening to this garbage and the entire nation has much more pressing issues to worry about, but to remind you of them here would be a complete waste of time, in view of this myopic obsessive fixation of a marginalized tiny fringe minority of the GOP (which has been recently denounced by other, more intelligent republicans).
to listen to this video, click on the red check mark
in the square.
Slaughter of Foreigners in Yemen Bears Mark of Former Gitmo Detainee
The fate of three of nine foreigners abducted in Yemen last week is known — their bodies were found, shot execution style. The whereabouts of the other six — including three children under the age of 6 — remain a mystery.
But terrorism experts say their abductors and killers are almost certainly not a mystery. They say the crimes bear the mark of AL Qaeda, and they fear they are the handiwork of the international terror organization's No. 2 man in the Arabian Peninsula: Said Ali al-Shihri, an Islamic extremist who once was in American custody — but who was released from the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Link for full story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,527868,00.html
But valuing over the price of a dollar is a right thing wing thing, so you are on the wrong board. n
x
I never said it's a bad thing, it is a good thing....nm
nm
one other thing though....
Agree with everything you stated, but I am profoundly disgusted also with Rove being able to expose a CIA agent, and nothing is going to be done about it in that I feel he committed treason, as Reagan did with Iran-Contra... Treasonous acts that are let to slide...no big deal huh? Who knows if someone is getting hurt because of his mouth, and yet, nothing... The silence is very annoying...as our country drops into a stinking sea of muck.
One more thing, gt. sm
Of all the people on these boards, YOUR opinion of me is the one I value the least.
Oh, and one more thing, gt. sm
Clnton signed Kyoto in 1997, only because he knew that the Senate would not ratify it. He was right. They voted 95-0 AGAINST Kyoto. Why? Because it would have required signatory nations to significantly cut greenhouse gases resulting from the burning of fosil fuels. Because ratifying the treaty would have required a large reduction in the use of fossil fuels that we use to our our economy. Until there is an alternative fuel source that is better than gold old fashioned coal and oil, restricting our economy's ability to burn these fuels would CRIPPLE US AS A NATION. You are not seeing the total picture here, you simply cannot be seeing it. I know the left's hatred for capitalism has blinded them to the fact that without our economy, we collapse. It really is that simple. We would be reduced to a third world nation in a very short period of time and you and I would not be sitting here writing on our computers because our world as we know it would change. Yes, it really is all about oil. But not the way you think.
and another thing
we aren't controlling anybody. There are several countries in this world where you are controlled, but this ain't one of them.
One more thing:
I apologize for the length of my post, but so far, I still have freedom of speech.
Guess I just feel the need to get it all out before that freedom suddenly disappears, as well. The majority of Americans don't agree with Bush, and we all know how he/his thugs handle people who dare to disagree with him. If you don't believe me, just ask John McCain and/or Valerie Plame.
I'd like to add one more thing.
If these alleged WMDs are so widespread and so easily accessible in Iraq, why aren't any of them being used on our soldiers?
Honestly, that's one of the very first fears I had when I heard we were going to war with Iraq (when I still believed the reasons given by the president and supported the invasion based on those reasons). I had visions of massive troop deaths at the hands of Iraqis and these WMDs.
Did that happen? 
OK. Here's the thing...sm
Because we've been through this before and I feel a repeat coming on. I'm respectful and nice to everyone on these boards 99% of the time. People come over to the liberal board and pretend they are moderates or just want to *debate.* When all the time they are anti-everything liberal and have no intention of seeing the liberal point of view. In the end, they end up *insulted* off of the board and run to the other board and have a sling fest. Yawn. They have revelations over there contrary to the beliefs they portrayed on this board. So really I'm skeptical about debating with the like. You may be 100% different worldfan, but from your posts on the Conservative and News boards it would appear you would be more at home on the conservative board giving them a high five about what's going on over here. Just my observation.
I used to post on the conservative board but I left because they were getting too extreme for my liking. It's that simple. There are some topics over there that I would reply too, but I don't b/c of past comments made over there, which have made me stick to the liberal page. However, on quite a few issues I am far from liberal like abortion and fiscal spending.
I hope you get my points. If not, we don't have anything more to discuss.
Sorry. Here's the whole thing.
I was trying to avoid this but the link is not working for some reason.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 04, 2006 |
|
|
Headlines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britons Tire of Cruel, Vulgar US: Poll |
|
|
People in Britain view the United States as a vulgar, crime-ridden society obsessed with money and led by an incompetent president whose Iraq policy is failing, according to a newspaper poll.
The United States is no longer a symbol of hope to Britain and the British no longer have confidence in their transatlantic cousins to lead global affairs, according to the poll published in The Daily Telegraph.
...a majority of the Britons described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business. ![src=http://www.commondreams.org/images/endquote.gif]()
|
|
The YouGov poll found that 77 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement that the US is a beacon of hope for the world.
As Americans prepared to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence on Tuesday, the poll found that only 12 percent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975.
A massive 83 percent of those questioned said that the United States doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.
With much of the worst criticism aimed at the US adminstration, the poll showed that 70 percent of Britons like Americans a lot or a little.
US President George W. Bush fared significantly worse, with just one percent rating him a great leader against 77 percent who deemed him a pretty poor or terrible leader.
More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination. And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests.
US policy in Iraq was similarly derided, with only 24 percent saying they felt that the US military action there was helping to bring democracy to the country.
A spokesman for the American embassy said that the poll's findings were contradicted by its own surveys.
We question the judgment of anyone who asserts the world would be a better place with Saddam still terrorizing his own nation and threatening people well beyond Iraq's borders, the paper quoted the unnamed spokesman as saying.
With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism.
But frankly, so do you (the British press).
In answer to other questions, a majority of the Britons questions described Americans as uncaring, divided by class, awash in violent crime, vulgar, preoccupied with money, ignorant of the outside world, racially divided, uncultured and in the most overwhelming result (90 percent of respondents) dominated by big business.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse
### |
 Printer Friendly Version  E-Mail This Article |
|
|
|
FAIR USE NOTICE |
|
|
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know the same thing.nm
12
The thing that got me was this...sm
This totally counts out everyday Joes. And those with a couple million to run. A half a billion dollars is a lot of money.
One last thing.....
Your argument might hold more water if I thought for one minute liberals understood that it was Michael Moore's OPINION and not the truth (but why should they, because he frames as the truth). I think, if you truly understand that, you are in the minority.
One more thing...
I asked the last poster to bring me one example of a Democrat who, when caught in wrongdoing, has resigned. Just one. She has not come back with one, even though I named several who should have. As I stated, the only Democrat I know of who resigned from anything resigned because he was coming out of the closet, and I find that ludicrous. The man should not have resigned because he was gay. For felony perjury, yes. For obstruction of justice, yes. Remember please the congressman who actually had a homosexual affair with an underage page (male). No Democratic outrage. He stood right up and said he was an adult and it was consensual and that had nothing to do with his job as a Congressman. No Democratic outrage. In fact, he was re-elected. Yes, that was several years ago, but all that proves is that the Democratic moral compass went wonky several years ago. It is not a recent thing, it is just getting worse and worse and worse. Stop please dancing around the subject, and please to bring forth one or two Democrats who have actually resigned and admitted wrongdoing? And while you are at it, Republicans who were caught and still hold office? I would be very willing to read and re-assess. Try for one minute to take off the liberal hat and look at it objectively. It is case after case after case...Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, William Jefferson, and on and on the list goes....in fact, Alcee Hastings was removed as a Federal Judge for bribery and perjury..see below.
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming only the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.
Ain't that special?? And just proves the point.
How did I get into this thing..
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time. My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again.
How did I get in this thing....
I have not said anything about regime change for months, years. I said Iraq was on the table before 9/11 solely to illuminate the fact that 9/11 set the stage for what some had been wanting to do for a long time.
My point was that it is not only *this* administration. Clinton felt strongly enough about Iraq and regime change, as did the Congress at that time, to enact a LAW calling for regime change. So Iraq was on the table then. The articles posted would lead you to believe that liberals/Democrats never called for regime change. They are the instigating part of the *some* you speak of. And if you will read Clinton's speech at the time, if you did not know he gave it, you would think Bush might have, because the content is eerily similar. It is just odd to me that liberals were on board for WMD, on board for regime change, on board for force, on board for ALL of it when Clinton was calling for it. How do liberals manage that massive flip flop? I remember Clinton's speech well. It was one of the few times that I agreed with what he was doing and saying.
My intent was to emphasize that this administration used 9/11 as a way to garner support from Congress and the American people for the switch from Afghanistan to Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, there would never have been support for a preemptive war in Iraq nor do I believe we would have supported going after bin Laden. It took something monumental for the American people to be willing to go to war. Okay. I get it. 3000 people dying here was not enough to make liberals willing to go to war. What, in the name of the Almighty, is, I am wondering.
How do you know Clinton is my favorite president?? I think he was a good president and I was doing a lot better when he was in office but you assume much here. I was being facetious...he seems to be the posterboy for liberals. I apologize. I will not refer to him as YOUR favorite President anymore. Glad though that you validated what I have said on numerous occasions, that liberals are about what is good for them individually...I am glad you personally were doing better when he was President.
In my lifetime I think maybe JFK was my favorite president (I was about 10 years old and I remember him as bigger than life) and one of the reasons for that was that he inspired us. I don't think anyone has really done that since, made us think and feel like we could do anything. It really has been downhill since Watergate. Maybe it has gone downhill for you since watergate. Personally I think it started downhill then, and made a huge massive slide with Monicagate and a sitting President committing felony perjury. However, I do not hold the country responsible for that as you seem to. I hold the individuals...Nixon and Clinton...responsible. At least Nixon had a modicum of grace to say he was wrong and resign when caught. Clinton has done neither and his party has not expected him to and has in fact defended him. You will never hear me defend either of them.
I will cease and desist from regime change rhetoric if I never have to hear the words spew or ooze again. I believe it was one on the liberal board who started the *spew* and *ooze* and the only time I have used those words was again, being facetious, in reply to the ones who used them. I personally did not start the use of those. In fact, I think her words were *spew venom* (ick). As to cease and desist, go ahead with the regime change rhetoric if you like. We know it did not originate with Bush, not opinion, matter of law. No spin, hard fact.
Have a good day.
The right thing to do is...
allow everyone to vote. No one needs to step down. And I do not support either of them. I supported Ron Paul when he was in the race.
One more thing
He keeps flashing a pic of himself when he was a young guy in the military. Almost every commercial of him shows him when he was younger, and in fact one of his ads on this website shows him a young guy in the military. He's now old and he should have a current picture. What's next, Barack putting up adds with his high school senior pic? How about Hillary running with a picture of her in grade school. The guy is old and if he's so confident in himself he should have a current pic of him. He's no longer younger and he doesn't have the mind of someone younger.
You did no such thing since he never said that.
I did do my research and so did the author of "comparative drug use." above. FYI: Crack/free-base cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride are not the same. One is pure, the other a compound. The addition of hydrochloride gives the intranasal compound a completely different chemical make-up that does not have the same effect. It is slower on the uptake and clears the system much faster than the cocaine base (giving it less of an addictive potential) . The pure free base/crack cocaine DOES NOT WORK when it is snorted, since the absorption is obstructed when it is attacked by enzymes via the nasal route. Method of delivery does matter, in terms of drug effect, absorption, drug life and addiction potential. If you are an MT, you know where to go to verify this information.
I am aware of what he said and did not say in his book. I have nothing to add to the "comparative drug use" post in that regard. Furthermore, there is nothing inaccurate in my original post. There is a pervert on a right-wing fringe blog who made these unsubstantiated claims about his witnessed account of "sharing" cocaine with Obama and having homosexual sex with him. He has also been discredited and has a wrap sheet a mile long. Does not seem like a credible observation from a credible source. That's all I said. I did not deny, nor did I acknowledge whether or not Obama used cocaine. My comments referred to how information is extracted from legitimate sources (in this case, straight from the horse's mouth), twisted and manipulated by perverts and right-wing blogsters in desperate efforts to smear somebody's character when they are unable to engage themselves directly in legitimate policy issues. The "character" card, whether played by one party or the other, is really a lame strategy that prevents productive, progressive approaches to issues and solutions to problems of dire importance to us AS A NATION, not as party affiliates.
That is the best thing you
can come up with? Let us forget Obama's association with Ayers or his 20-year membership to a church that preached hate messages......let's just focus on McCain calling his wife a C unt shall we. Sheesh......If he thought so little of women, he would never have chose one to run as his VP.
In all seriousness though, why is c unt such an offensive word? Who dictates words and which ones are bad? Who decided that the F bomb was bad? Who determined what words were considered swear words? If I called someone a poop head and then called someone a c unt, they are both supposed to insult...are they not.....so why is one worse than the other and who determined that?
At least she is doing the right thing
She is going to have the baby and not kill it
|
