I read his transcript on the Internet
Posted By: Beth on 2009-03-03
In Reply to: Did anyone see Greta Van Sustern last night? - Backwards typist
It was good (not surprised). Rush has a way of hitting the nail on the head.
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
Read the transcript of the charges
I know, I know, it's Fox News that most of you don't believe, but this is the whole transcript, 78 pages long. Hope you all are speed readers.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/rrb_-jh_FINAL_complaint_cover_and_aff.pdf
It's really too bad you didn't take the time to read the entire transcript
of what William Bennett said, Democrat. But I am not surprised.
I would like to see the transcript too...
I read on the AMW site that the illegal is suing the government..it did not specifically say for what reason, though it is a civil case and there is no telling...probably, as you say, for his injuries. He should have no legal standing to bring a civil suit...that is outrageous. But, again, the AMW site is the only place I read that the guy was bringing a suit against the US. There is also something on the AMW site about a couple of the jurors signing affadavits afterward about being given wrong instructions about the reaching a verdict...but again, only on the AMW site did I read this. More investigation would be in order, and yes...it would be interesting to be party to the same evidence the jury saw. But, bottom line...the President does have the power to pardon, and if Bush thinks that they do not deserve a pardon, I would like to be privvy to the same information he is...because I would have to be convinced that they don't deserve one, so the President and I would be on opposite sides of this one. See, I don't think he is right on EVERYthing... ;-)
Transcript of SB1093
This is the transcript from the Illinois government website, not from a right wing source or left wing, so everyone can read for themselves what was actually said. I think that will help people who feel like this is an attack on him. I'm sorry I don't mean to push this issue but its just so heartbreaking to me! I mean if a child comes out of the womb, and is breathing, the child has been BORN right????
Again I just wanted to post this so we wouldn't have any arguments of right or leftness. Like I said, this is a HUMANITY issue. What's next? "If the elderly can't care for themselves and no one will care for them, we kill them?" Sounds like a creepy book we read in school once....
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Link for transcript inside....sm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/01/transcript-rush-limbaughs-address-cpac/
Larry Craig/W phone transcript
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2007/09/larry-craig.asp
The transcript and a bonus (the incorrect spelling is not mine)
|
If you can't see our menu, your pop-up blocker is enabled. Click here to see the site directory. |
Saturday, Oct 01, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
Quotes And Statements |
|
|
Statement By Bill Bennett, Sep. 30, 2005 From the Desk of William J. Bennett September 30, 2005
On Wednesday, a caller to my radio show proposed the idea that one good argument for the pro-life position would be that if we didn't have abortions, Social Security would be solvent. I stated my doubts about such a thesis, as well as my opposition to such a form of argument (the audio of the call is available at my Website: bennettmornings.com).
I then stated that such extrapolations of this argument can cut both ways, and cited the current bestseller, Freakonomics, which discusses the authors' thesis that abortion reduces crime.
Then, putting my philosophy professor's hat on, I went on to reveal the limitations of such arguments by showing the absurdity in another such argument, along the same lines. I entertained what law school professors call 'the Socratic method' and what I would hope good social science professors still use in their seminars. In so doing, I suggested a hypothetical analogy while at the same time saying the proposition I was using about blacks and abortion was 'impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible,' just to ensure those who would have any doubt about what they were hearing, or for those who tuned in to the middle of the conversation.
The issues of crime and race have been on many people's minds, and tongues, for the past month or so--in light of the situation in New Orleans; and the issues of race, crime, and abortion are well aired and ventilated in articles, the academy, the think tank community, and public policy. Indeed the whole issue of crime and race is not new in social science, nor popular literature. One of the authors of Freakonomics, himself, had an extended exchange on the discussion of these issues on the Internet some years back--which was also much debated in the think tank community in Washington.
A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. 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.
In sum, 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.
Bill Bennett Interview on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes Regarding Race, Crime, Etc. Courtesy of Fox News Channel/9-29-2005
First, our top story tonight is the controversy surrounding radio talk show host Bill Bennett. Yesterday on his radio show, Mr. Bennett -- Dr. Bennett was quoted as saying. I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you cold abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down...that would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
The comments have drawn criticism today from Senate minority leader Harry Reid who said he was appalled. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who called them racist and from House minority leader Nancy Pelosi who said they were shameful. Bill Bennett joins us now in an exclusive interview to talk about these comments.
Dr. Bennett, we appreciate you coming on tonight.
DR. BILL BENNETT, MORNING IN AMERICA HOST: Thank you.
COLMES: Might give you an opportune to put them in context and explain.
BENNETT: Sure. Well, the context was a radio show that I was doing yesterday, and the topic was abortion and we were talking about bad arguments in regard to abortion. A caller suggested he was opposed to abortion because he said if there were more babies there would be, eventually, more tax payers and a larger GNP, a smaller deficit. I said you want to be careful with that kind of argument because someone could postulate a situation where child's not likely to be a productive taxpayer. I said, arguments in which you take something that's far out, like the GNP and try to connect it up with abortion are tricky. I said make the case of abortion on the basis of life and protecting life. I said abortion is invoked in another way; you could make an argument that if you wanted to lower the crime rate, you saw the quote; you could practice abortion in very large numbers. You could do it in the black community; you could do it in other places. This is, by the way, the subject of a book for economics by a professor at Yale.
I said, however, if you were to practice that, widespread abortion in the black community or any other community, it would be ridiculous, impossible, and I appreciate you putting it on the screen, morally reprehensible. So I think morally reprehensible, when that is included in the quote makes it perfectly clear what my position is. A number of the people whom you have cited as condemning me have not made the inclusion of that remark, and so they make it seem, Alan, as if I am supporting such a monstrous idea, which of course I don't.
COLMES: Here's my concern. The root cause of crime, one would debate, it seems to be poverty. And from your remarks, I wonder if people might interpret it as saying the root cause of crime is race. And that debate about is it race is it poverty? What really is the root cause? And race affects people of all races and creeds and I think that's why...
BENNETT: Poverty. Poverty affects people of all races. Let me tell you what bothers me first, because I'm always candid with you. What bothers me is that last night on your radio show, you were all over me, Alan. And, you know, I was really surprised. You know me, you've known me for a long time and the fact that you would give credence to the notion that I would believe such a thing is very disturbing. I've had 1,000 opportunities when people have said to me what about that Alan Colmes, isn't he a jerk or a liberal this -- I've always said he's always a gentleman, he's nice to me. I run a radio show in which we don't yell at people, we don't make fun of them. We have liberals and conservatives and we deal with sensitive and important public policies issues and we do it in a responsible way. But people need to follow the argument and the argument I was making here is entirely plausible. The causes of crime are very complicated. But there is a very big literature, as you know, about single parenthood in crime, about race in crime, and about poverty in crime. And we've been talking about all these things lately in the context of New Orleans and other things.
COMES: Let me talk to you...
BENNETT: There are real things in the real world, and there are people who believe we should take such monstrous steps.
COLMES: Let me talk about what I said on my radio show.
BENNETT: I do not.
COLMES: Dr. Bennett -- Bill, because you know, I do consider you someone -- we've been good to each other. I like you. I think you respect me.
BENNETT: Yes sir.
COLMES: I was really shocked.
BENNETT: Have been.
COLMES: And I plaid what you said and the whole context of what you said. Frankly, I was just shocked by it. I don't believe you're a racist. I don't think that you believe those things. I was just shocked by what I heard and I -- basically there was a lot of callers calling up and commenting on it after I played your comments. And a lot of other people were shocked that you would have -- in the context you said it, say the things you said.
BENNETT: Well, you know, 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. You know, I've taught philosophy for years and one argues in the hypothetical all the time. People have said such outrageous things, Alan, about race and this is not unknown to our history. It's certainly not unknown to our history -- to the history of Europe, recently. It's not unknown to the history of Islam. And what we have -- you've got to be able to make an argument and say look, you may be thinking you're going to achieve some good end, but you can't use a monstrous means to do it. You know, this is like a Swift's modest proposal for people who remember their literature. You put things up in order to examine them. I put it up, examined it, and said that is ridiculous and impossible no matter who advances that idea.
COLMES: All right, we got -- Sean will be with you in the next segment. There are some statistics, you know, that talk about how African- Americans are treated disparagingly in the criminal justice and, you know, we could debate whether or not there really is a greater prejudice against African-Americans and whether they are incarcerated disproportionately.
BENNETT: Yeah.
COLMES: But look we got to take a break and we'll continue with you...
BENNETT: Those are big complicated questions...
COLMES: And later, there more political fallout on Capitol Hill today over the indictment of Congressman Tom Delay. We'll take you behind closed doors to one of the most powerful members in the House.
And then Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan, says the suffering of hurricane Katrina has actually brought black Americans together. Is he using the crisis for his own political gain? You don't want to miss this.
And FEMA made a hasty deal in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and it's costing taxpayers $236 million. We'll get to the bottom of this shocking story coming up on HANNITY COLMES, tonight.
(NEWSBREAK) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: And this is a FOX News Alert. You are looking live at the hills of southern California where wildfires are blazing out of control and are threatening to destroy private residences. We have 3,000 firefighters working at this hour to control the blaze, but as you can see from these live pictures, they're still burning pretty hot. We're gong to keep you updated throughout the hour. We'll bring you new pictures as we get them and let you know as this developes. We hope they can put that out. I was out in southern California in Hope Ranch when this happened. It is devastating.
Also coming up tonight, now that Tom Delay is out House majority leader, at least temporarily, will issue like immigration reforms, spending on the federal level will suffer. We're going to ask one of the men who is stepping into part of his leadership position.
And there is some late-breaking information tonight about the man who is prosecuting come to Tom Delay. Is it a publicity stunt for a movie being made about him? We'll tell you about this tonight.
First, we continue with the host of Morning in America. Bill Bennett is back with us.
Bill, first of all, I have known for you many, many years. I know your faith, I know your character, I know who you are. You're a former secretary of education, former drug czar. This notion that Bill Bennett as is being alleged by prominent democrats has any racist bone in his body is appalling to me.
BENNETT: Yeah.
HANNITY: And I'm glad to hear you say what you said here. I want you to respond to those democrats that are grandstanding, the same ones that had Robert Bird, the former Klansman as their leader. The ones that didn't speak out about Congressman Wrangle's Bull Connor remark.
BENNETT: Yeah. Yeah. Well, let's see, you got Kennedy. I will -- I'll not take instruction from Teddy Kennedy. A young woman likely drowned because of his negligence. I'll take no moral instruction with him. That's much worse than legal gambling what Teddy Kennedy did. He should make no judgments at all about people. He shouldn't be in the Senate. As far as racist and all this other stuff, I'll put my record up with Howard Dean, with Harry Reid.
When I was drug czar, you bet, we were working on the issue of black crime, Alan and Sean, because there was a lot of crime in the black community. And you know who most of the victims are? Their black people. Yeah, black violence -- black-on-black violence is very serious. I went to about 120 inner city communities. That's where the senate wanted me to go, that's where the Senate wanted me to go, that's where I wanted to go. We went after public housing and we went after the bad guys. And you know what? We got the bad guys. And drug use went down. And we raised the price and lowered the purity of cocaine. And we arrested four of the most powerful drug dealers in the world. And got a lot of these guys off the street. And I am very proud of that. Because when we went into the inner city black community, the people said to me, Mr. Czar, or Czar, or Mr. Benet, you get those people off the street and protect us. And we did our best to do it.
Before that, when I was secretary of education, I took on what I think is one of the great civil rights issues of our time, which is educational opportunity and educational choice. The stupid ghettoized curriculum we have, the fact that these black kids go to lousy schools and aren't allowed to choose the schools of their choice because they don't have the money and don't have the opportunity.
I've been at this for 25 years and I have been called everything in the book, but I will stay at what I do because I believe it.
Let me just tell you, when it comes to abortion, my wife's program, best friends, has kept more young women from having abortions because they don't get pregnant because they take her good counsel...
HANNITY: Let me...
BENNETT: Than the entire black caucus. She has done more for inner city black girls than the entire black caucus. So I will not bow my head to any of these people. I will not give up the ground of compassion and sympathy. But I'll tell you, we have real issues and we have got to talk about them candidly. And if you don't think there are people who are making draconian proposals about abortion and this and that and the other thing, you know, you don't know the nature...
HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I want to ask you about the nature of debate in this society.
BENNETT: Sure.
HANNITY: I go back to the Bill Maher issue. I don't like -- I don't even like Bill Maher. We disagree on just about everything. But Bill Maher said one statement and his entire history of support in the military was cast aside and people focused on one thing. I said wait a minute, that's wrong. Here's Bill Bennett, here's Trent Lott. One statement, there's no room to apologize, explain, put into context, revise or extend one's remarks because people want to hop on it. We now see the democrats trying to do right now with you and trying to put you in a position of characterizing you, or categorizing you as something you are not. What does that tell you about debate and free speech in the country today?
BENNETT: It's bad. You know, if you could do an analysis -- it would be interesting to do an analysis. All day I've been reading reports and statements by people about me, Sean, and it's interesting, some use the whole quote and are fair, some don't. And that tells you something. But the problem, I think, on the liberal side, the democratic side is they attitudinize, they condemn but they don't have a program.
You know, the president -- I hope the president pays for this program in New Orleans, but he's got a program, and it's some interesting ideas about enterprise zones and school choice, and giving people opportunities, you know, with the loans and the green lining and they ought to be tried. Because these are ideas that might actually help the poor as opposed to maintaining the welfare state, which does not help poor people at all. It's destroyed a lot of families and it has created circumstances in which more poor people and more black people have had to suffer. What's lifted, the economic life and reduced crime in the black community has been hope and opportunity and education and enterprise.
HANNITY: Let me ask you one last question.
BENNETT: And that I think is much more, I have to tell you on this side of the aisle, I want to politicize this because there are good people on both sides.
HANNITY: Explain. I want you to explain, though, for people that see that one quote, that read that one quote, what do you say to them?
BENNETT: What I say to them, Sean, is if they were given the impression that I, you know, am in favor of such a horrible idea as, you know, my critics are suggesting, they need to look at the whole quote. I don't believe that. And I'm sorry that people have misrepresented my views so much that that has given folks that impression. You're right about a person's life. I've got a life, you know, take me in the totality of my actions and I'll tell you, I will stand with my record.
One must be very careful one gets into these arguments and we try to do it. But, you know, we try on this show to do serious and controversial issues. And it's a big country and it's a free country. We don't put liberals down. We don't put people down with whom we disagree. We talk about serious things in a serious way. And if you're not allowed to talk about these subjects, then it's not the country it's supposed to be.
You've got to be able to condemn these horrible ideas as I did.
HANNITY: Bill Bennett, appreciate you being on the program.
BENNETT: Thank you. Thank you guys.
HANNITY: Thank you very much.
And come upping next, Tom Delay will be fighting charges in court. So, you will be fighting for the GOP (SIC) in Congress. We'll talk to one republican leader next.
And who was the man going after the House majority leader, Tom Delay? We have late-breaking information tonight that he is allowing film makers to make a movie about him. Is this all part of a script? We'll give you the details. Much more to come.
|
|
|
|
Transcript: Democratic response to Pres. Bush's
Good morning. This is Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House Majority Leader.
Over the past several months, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have negotiated a bipartisan extension of the highly successful childrens health insurance program known as CHIP - a program enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, with strong Democratic support, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
CHIP provides health insurance coverage for over six and one-half million American children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance.
However, millions of other children who are currently eligible for this health insurance are not enrolled due to the programs limited resources.
To address this, our bipartisan legislation provides funding for approximately four million more children - ensuring that at least 10 million low-income children in our nation receive the health care coverage they need and deserve. Thats good for them and for our country.
This legislation does not change current eligibility guidelines. It simply strengthens CHIPs financing, covers more low-income children, and improves the quality of care they receive.
Sadly, on Wednesday, President Bush - in the face of bipartisan majorities in Congress, and contrary to the will of the American people - vetoed our bipartisan bill.
The President claims - wrongly - that this bill is fiscally irresponsible.
The truth is, this legislation is fully paid for. It does not add one nickel to the deficit or to the debt.
Furthermore, under the Presidents proposal more than 800,000 children who now receive coverage under CHIP would lose that coverage.
The President claims that this legislation would lead to a government takeover of health insurance. He is wrong.
The truth is, Americas largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill - as do Americas doctors, nurses, childrens advocates, 43 governors, and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans.
The claims made against this bill are simply wrong.
As Senator Pat Roberts, a senior Republican from Kansas, recently said: I am not for excessive spending and strongly oppose the federalization of health care. And if the Administrations concerns with this bill were accurate, I would support a veto. But, Senator Roberts added: Bluntly put, they are not.
Most puzzling of all, perhaps, is the fact that the Presidents veto violates his own campaign promise.
In 2004, at the Republican National Convention, the President promised (and I quote): In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of children who are eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs. We will not allow, he said, a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these children and the health care they need.
But he has done just that.
But the Congress has done exactly what the President said he was going to do, if re-elected.
Yet today, the only thing standing between millions of American children and the health insurance they need and deserve is one person. The President is saying no to these children he promised to help.
This is a defining moment for this Congress.
In the words of Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, weve got to do what we can to try to override the Presidents veto.
In the days ahead, we will work to persuade many of our Republican colleagues, who insist on standing with the President, to instead join the bipartisan majorities in Congress - and Americas children - in overriding this veto.
I urge all of you: Contact your Member of Congress.
Ask them to support our children.
Ask them to do what the President promised to do when he sought re-election.
Ask them to vote to override the Presidents veto and ensure health care for our kids and for their future.
Thank you for listening. This is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
FYI, not everybody sits on the internet all day.
x
Need new insult. Yours getting old. Look up on internet. Do better.
People watching.
You obviously have access to the internet...
What you should do is research for yourself instead of listening to the news readers. Their superiors very often have an agenda for their candidate, whoever that may be.
There's a lot of info out there, and a lot you have to sift through. But if you're truly looking for the truth, you'll figure it out if you do enough research.
I say this because we live in a unique time. We do have access to information like never before. It scares me to think that our media does not generally do what they are supposed to do and make clear distinctions so we can make clear decisions. They are supposed to be watchdogs, not report on nonsense tabloid issues.
I pray that we never have a government like they did under Stalin, and others. There was propaganda back then also, but there was no way for the people to know other than what they were told because the government controlled the media. And believe it or not, there are pols who want that kind of control today.
Sometimes the media does their job, but what we're told about a particular person/politician seems too incredible to be believed, but if we dig around, we can find out a lot and make a more informed decision regarding our country. The average person, years ago, didn't believe there were men who craved power so badly that they would destroy their own, but they did, and history bears that out. Current events in other countries also bears that out.
You know what they say, those who forget [or simply ignore] the past are destined/doomed to repeat it. I want our politicians, whether dem, rep, or indy, to learn from what has been done against this country, and I want them to put our interests first. Our interests being to do the job they are constitutionally required to do, and that is to provide defense, protect this country from those who would do us, or our allies, harm.
Yes, we need to come to the aid of those in this country who cannot provide for themselves, but it has gotten out of hand and mired down in wasteful bureaucracy and is not getting to those who actually need it.
My pet peeve, I don't want to hear how the world is against us. We've been there for everyone, and when we are for them, they certainly accept it, and then turn against us like a relative that only comes around when they want something. When we don't do for them, we're lambasted, but we cannot be everything to the world. We can only do so much. But we are blessed and we bless others, and rightly so.
But it seems to me that some want us to be puppets and/or sitting ducks. If I hear a politician say anything that remotely looks like they want us to be liked by the world, I look for someone else, because that should not be on the agenda. If they believe otherwise, I look until I know in whom to place my trust and my hard-earned vote. I really don't put much stake in whether or not we're liked. It's proof enough to me that they all want to come here, and most are willing to stand in line for that honor.
Note: I do believe we need good relations with other countries, but we need to do what's in the best interests for our own first. That should always be our top priority.
Internet poll...
Firstly of all, it is the result of an Internet poll.
Secondly TAKE IT EASY.
Cut out the RAGE.
sorry - internet is forever - if it was there, it is still there somewhere -
nm
I Invented the Internet (Ep. 1 - Audacity) see msg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE
This is all internet talk. On one has said this in public where...sm
he would need to address it. It is all just speculative talk by people trying to scare you into voting for McCain. None of it is true. Beware of the sources you get your information from. In other words, believe none of what you read and only half of what you see. When you are sure your sources are credible, then make your decision.
you do know internet petitions are worthless, right? nm
x
There's some interesting reading on the internet
regarding the 14th Amendment and anchor babies (as one website refers to them as "jackpot babies.") I agree jackpot is more appropriate then anchor. The numbers of them being born is staggering. One thing I didn't realize that the 14th amendment was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves.
We did...turn off the TV, that is. Still splattered over the Internet, tho...
Took this site off my favorites, too, because you libbies are just too much lately.
Came back to see if there's anything nice going on, and just the same old rapture from you.
Unbelievable.
Yes, but it was not going to be discussed and your pictures posted on the internet...
for the entire country to see and discuss. Her privacy, which she is entitled to as a 16-year-old, has been invaded in a very nasty way. Sorry, that is the way I feel about it. I think it was terribly wrong for dailykrap to post it and terribly wrong for someone to spread it even further here. But that is just me.
CNN, Fx, MSNBC 1, 2 days behind internet news.
nm
Its all over the internet that the plan has been for Biden to step down (sm)
and Hillary to take his place.
Can't be too bad...you can afford a good Internet connection. sm
I have my doubts as to whether all your meals are hot dogs and mac and cheese, but I could be wrong....
....and there is work out there. You don't have to just sit there and let it dry up. And don't blame the 8 yrs of republicans. The last two years of democratic ruled Congress has been worse than the previous six before that.
You think you have it bad now.
Just wait till dems are in control of everything.
You'll have less than nothing, and have to give it away to others less unfortunate than yourself. However are you going to be able to afford that?
Saw this as an open letter on internet, and boy did she hit the nail...
on the head! And I agree with her, 110%!
I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.
Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. But* out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idio* you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.
Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're moro*s.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole da** congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
Another tough Biden interview...scrubbed from the Internet...
Marxism at its best, once again, what we will be able to expect from an Obama white house
Try putting the following in google, and the interview has been scrubbed clean off the Internet. It's hard to even find a transcript of the interview, and could only find parts of it.
Like Orlando, Obama - Biden Bans Philadelphia Station CBS3 After Tough Biden Interview
Icons work in Internet Explorer not Firefox
:)
Please describe the actual physical threat that you allege was made on this internet chat board.
Thank you.
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
I read that. And then MT goes on
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
I have read this...
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
Well, I don't read the
leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.
I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.
have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.
Where can we read about this? TIA - nm
can't read and can't
recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.
Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.
So can I.
Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:
"Hold me accountable."
I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.
So bring it on.
I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.
And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO
|