I agree- that officer should have been arrested instead of fired.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

We've heard a lot about this story, and I think Cynthia was in the wrong. She should have gone through the check point and not around it, and explained who she was, and most importantly had her ID on. Maybe she thought since she had been in congress since 1992 they would recognize her by now. Maybe it was a reflex hit. Who knows? Either way she should not have swung on the officer.

Surely republicans with their forgiving hearts and *everyone makes mistakes* attitude will accept her apology and move on. NOT. See link.

Arresting Deputy Didn�t Want To �Defame� Gibson

�I don�t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson� says officer, who is Jewish

MSNBC
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:56 p.m. PT July 31, 2006

Excerpt:

CALABASAS, Calif. - The deputy who arrested Mel Gibson on suspicion of drunken driving said Monday that he feels bad for damage to the star�s reputation but hopes Gibson thinks twice before drinking and getting behind the wheel.

James Mee, a Los Angeles County sheriff�s deputy, told the Associated Press that he considered it a routine arrest and didn�t take seriously any comments that Gibson made.

Gibson reportedly unleashed an anti-Semitic tirade and made other offensive comments when he was pulled over, initially for speeding, early Friday along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. He was then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Gibson has issued a public apology for his conduct without specifying what he said or did.

�I don�t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson,� said Mee, a 17-year deputy who is Jewish. �What I had hoped out of this is that he would think twice before he gets behind the wheel of a car and was drinking. ... I don�t want to ruin his career. I don�t want to defame him in any way or hurt him.�

*snip*

TMZ reported that Gibson said, �The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,� and asked the arresting officer, �Are you a Jew?�

In the interview outside his home, Mee would not comment specifically on what Gibson said.

�That stuff is booze talking,� the deputy said. �There�s two things that booze does. It amplifies your basic personality. If you are a laid-back kind of person, just an easygoing kind of person, booze is going to amplify that and you�ll be just sitting around going how it�s a wonderful day.

'TOO PATRIOTIC'?? That's reason for dismissal from a job? What the h@ll is this country coming to?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081030/ap_on_re_us/obama_effigy_8;_ylt=ApnYVC6hvVirz0zH0FdKaFxh24cA

MIKE MALLOY FIRED BY AIR AMERICA RADIO

There will be no Mike Malloy program today - or any day - on Air America Radio as we have been terminated. We are as shocked as you are. We are told its a financial decision.

More details to follow as we hear them ourselves.

Bush Official Arrested in Corruption Probe

The Bush administration's top federal procurement official resigned Friday and was arrested yesterday, accused of lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government. It was the first criminal complaint filed against a government official in the ongoing corruption probe related to Abramoff's activities in Washington.

The complaint, filed by the FBI, alleges that David H. Safavian, 38, a White House procurement official involved until last week in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, made repeated false statements to government officials and investigators about a golf trip with Abramoff to Scotland in 2002.

Procurement chief David H. Safavian was connected to probe of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. (Melina Mara/twp - Twp)

It also contends that he concealed his efforts to help Abramoff acquire control of two federally managed properties in the Washington area. Abramoff is the person identified as Lobbyist A in a 13-page affidavit unsealed in court, according to sources knowledgeable about the probe.

Until his resignation on the day the criminal complaint against him was signed, Safavian was the top administrator at the federal procurement office in the White House Office of Management and Budget, where he set purchasing policy for the entire government.

The arrest occurred at his home in Alexandria. A man who answered the phone there yesterday hung up when a reporter asked to speak to Safavian.

Abramoff was indicted by federal prosecutors in Miami last month on unrelated charges of wire fraud and conspiracy. He remains the linchpin of an 18-month probe by a federal task force that includes the Internal Revenue Service, the Interior Department and the Justice Department's fraud and public integrity units. His lawyer did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.

Abramoff's allegedly improper dealings with Indian tribes -- which netted him and an associate at least $82 million in fees -- prompted the federal probe. But investigators have found that his documents and e-mails contain a trove of information about his aggressive efforts to seek favors for clients from members of Congress and senior bureaucrats.

Accompanying Safavian and Abramoff on the 2002 trip to Scotland, for example, were Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Administration Committee, lobbyist and former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and Neil Volz, a lobbyist with Abramoff at the Washington office of Greenburg Traurig.

Like Abramoff, Safavian is a veteran Washington player. He is a former lobbying partner of anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and previously worked with Abramoff at another firm. Both he and Abramoff have represented gambling clients and Indian tribes with gambling interests.

At the time of the golf trip, Safavian was chief of staff at the General Services Administration, where ethics rules flatly prohibited the receipt of a gift from any person seeking an official action by the agency. When Safavian asked GSA ethics officers for permission to go on the trip, he assured them in writing that Abramoff has no business before GSA, according to the affidavit signed by FBI special agent Jeffrey A. Reising.

Reising alleged, however, that Abramoff had by then already secretly enlisted Safavian in an effort to buy 40 acres of land that GSA managed in Silver Spring for use as the campus of a Hebrew school Abramoff founded. Safavian also allegedly tried to help Abramoff lease space for Abramoff's clients in an old post office building downtown.

On July 22, 2002, Abramoff sent Safavian an e-mail with a proposed draft letter that at least two members of Congress could send to GSA supporting the lease, according to the affidavit. Does this work, or do you want it to be longer? Abramoff asked.

Three days later, Safavian forwarded Abramoff an e-mail describing how an employee at OMB was resisting Abramoff's plan to lease space at the post office. I suspect we'll end up having to bring some Hill pressure to bear on OMB, Safavian messaged Abramoff.

On the same day Safavian discussed the golf trip with the ethics office, he sent an e-mail to Abramoff from his home computer, advising him how to lay out a case for this lease. Abramoff subsequently wrote in an e-mail to his wife and two officials of the school that Safavian had shown him a map of the property at his GSA office but had cautioned that Abramoff should not visit again given my high profile politically.

Safavian nonetheless arranged a meeting for Abramoff's wife and business partner with officials at GSA on the day before he departed for Scotland aboard Abramoff's chartered jet. The trip cost more than $120,000 and was paid for mostly by a charity founded and run by Abramoff, the Capital Athletic Foundation.

When Safavian was questioned by The Washington Post about the trip in January, he said he paid his share of the expenses and took unpaid leave. The trip was exclusively personal; I did no business there. . . . Jack is an old friend of mine, Safavian said.

But the complaint alleges that Safavian lied about his contacts with Abramoff on three occasions after his initial false pledge to the GSA ethics officer. The first was during a 2003 investigation by GSA's inspector general, who was responding to an anonymous tipster's hotline complaint; the second was in a March 17, 2005, letter to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs; and the third was during an FBI interview on May 26, 2005.

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray.

)

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it. And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people. A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor. Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7. I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them. All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries. They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods. About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.

I had the same feeling about Roberts and I was glad to hear he had done this pro bono work.

With every day that passes, I feel less and less hope. I've never been this frightened of a politician in my entire life.

And I wonder if we had stepped it up a while back, how much of this would be going on today. The more we delay, the better they get at their "craft."

I wish we had never gone in there to begin with and think it's one of the biggest mistakes a president could have ever made. But we're there, and we can't just go in there, turn their country upside down and leave without leaving them with some semblance of normalcy. Those who said this is a quagmire were right on the money.

Anyone who has anything less than a hate Bush agenda should burn in hell as far as GT is concerned. I too don't agree with Bush 100% on everything, but that does not matter to GT. If you agree with Bush on anything you should not pass GO and go straight to hell along with Bush's Stepford wife and alcoholic daughters. Am I painting that picture correctly GT?

I am a moderate conservative, and a Republican, although I'd consider a moderate Democrat like Joe Lieberman or somebody reasonable, however, the Democrats won't nomiate anybody like that, so my vote stays Republican.

As for hand outs and hand ups... There's a big difference between somebody who is unable to work and somebody who is unwilling to work. The individual who is physically or mentally unable to work, or the hard working family who falls on hard times for whatever reason that is out of their control, those people deserve some help. Hands outs/hands up, whatever you want to call it should be viewed as a stepping stone to self sufficiency.

I feel for the innocent victims (children) of those who embrace a lifestyle of just taking free money from those of us in society who work hard, but I havn't much compassion for able bodied young people who refuse to work. If an uneducated person is working hard but not making enough to sustain themselves they can avail themselves of food stamps, WIC, free school lunches, and I don't a problem with that. But, drive through a poor neighborhood and watch the young healthy people sitting on stoops and standing on corners doing nothing all day instead of working. Whether it be pursuing their GED, or taking vocational classes, they should be at least thinking of bettering themselves instead of just resigning to a life of free hand outs.

I hear ya and yes I agree we should stay away..There are a lof of other political boards through the net, where we can discourse/debate with conservatives over ideas and America without being attacked like mad dogs (I hate to use the analogy as mad dogs as my dogs are much kinder than the conservatives who post here..smile)..

I think O'Reilly got a taste of his own medicine and was about to lose it. I roared when Phil called him Billy, and Phil in no way denigrated Bill's nephew, but Phil had asked if any of O'Reilly's kids are serving in Iraq. O'Reilly tried to use his nephew's service to detract from the fact that NONE of his own children are there. I think that's what made O'Reilly the angriest: The fact that Phil zapped him on that point.

I agree- that officer should have been arrested instead of fired.

Bush Official Arrested in Corruption Probe

Politics Trivia

Who's Blogging?