The real story isn't that he lied. (sm)
Posted By: Marmann on 2009-02-27
In Reply to: So it's okay for Obama to lie but not others (nm) - Isn't that just a bit one-sided
After the last eight years, some of us EXPECT Republicans to lie. The real story is that he ADMITTED to lying. Won't he get thrown out of the GOP for daring to tell the truth? 
As far as this being a one-sided story, it is what it is. I doubt that you would withhold posting a story about Obama lying...if you had a legitimate one that could be documented as being truthful. Instead, you guys invent negative stories about Obama with no corroboration, and when asked for a link to your "story," instead of providing one, you hurl personal negative insults at the poster.
When I heard this whole "once upon a time" story, it reminded me of Hillary's fake story about dodging snipers.
Jindal and Hillary Clinton. Both politicians, different parties. Both liars who invented entire life experiences that were lies, and both who should have been smart enough to know they would eventually get caught.
As far as whether it's okay for one to lie and not the other, I happen to believe it's NOT okay for ANY OF THEM to lie, regardless of party affiliation.
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
The story isn't that he lied. (sm)
After the last eight years, some of us EXPECT Republicans to lie. The story is that he ADMITTED to lying. Won't he get thrown out of the GOP for daring to tell the truth?
As far as this being a one-sided story, it is what it is. I doubt that you would withhold posting a story about Obama lying...if you had a legitimate one that could be documented as being truthful. Instead, you guys invent negative stories about Obama with no corroboration, and when asked for a link to your "story," instead of providing one, you hurl personal negative insults at the poster.
When I heard this whole "once upon a time" story, it reminded me of Hillary's fake story about dodging snipers.
Jindal and Hillary Clinton. Both politicians, different parties. Both liars who invented entire life experiences that were lies, and both who should have been smart enough to know they would eventually get caught.
As far as whether it's okay for one to lie and not the other, I happen to believe it's NOT okay for ANY OF THEM to lie, regardless of party affiliation.
Real story from the MSM?.....sm
Bush controlled, corporate crony owned media telling the truth - not going to happen. That only happens when you have a democratic republic, not a corporate plutocracy. TV news definitely lies, suppresses, and distorts news.
Here's the real story if you're interested
The family-planning program that Pelosi supports expanding was originally created in 1972 under the leadership of Richard Nixon. The proposal is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of the 26 states that already have Medicaid waivers for family planning, eight are led by Republican governors (AL, FL, MS, SC, CA, LA, MN and RI). John Boehner and House Republicans claim this is a "gift to the abortion industry," yet I don't see any Republican governors promising to end the program in their states.
Plus the process for obtaining the family-planning waiver is covered in red tape and often takes as long as TWO YEARS to be approved. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that eliminating the waiver requirement would save states $400 million over 10 years.
Of course, Drudge and Politico are screaming "Democrats want to spend $200 million on contraception!" without presenting the facts.
The real story is that this is supposed to be a stimulus package.
I can see from your post how this would help save states money over time, but how would it help stimulate the economy now? It wouldn't and that's why people are so upset.
The real story is that this is supposed to be a stimulus package.
I can see from your post how this would help save states money over time, but how would it help stimulate the economy now? It wouldn't and that's why people are so upset. Even Obama has said that if it doesn't create a job or save a job, it doesn't belong in there.
Conservative outright spin and BS, spread on Fox by Gregg Jarrett, for the real whole unbiased story
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgif=/c/2009/101/02/ED151514UE.dtl, there was one slight recession in 1937-1938 because of spectacular growth when it took off, read the rest of the story. Pubs will say anything to rewrite history and try to save face. IMO
No, goofy. Republicans are REAL people, real
nm
If the real folks, with real hope, faith, and
and for our country's future who participate here on this forum were just a tad as healthy, wealthy and wise as this poster considers herself, we probably wouldn't be sitting in front of these silly computers trying to make a living!! Can't figure why she is here other than tell us how healthy, wealthy and wise she is and we are not!
IMO, he has already lied about
plenty of things, but so many people are just willing to overlook that because they still believe his rhetoric.
No lobbyists would have a place in Washington when he is president.....although I believe he has 12 now.
He would go line by line to take out pork in bills, would leave them online for so many days so it could be reviewed by all, etc. What a big lie and joke that was.
Taking a doctor's freedom away by refusing to allow him the option to refuse to perform an abortion. People grumble and gripe about taking their freedom away and for government to stay out of their uterus and yet they have no problem with taking away the free will of a doctor. Funny how it is wrong to take free will away from one group but it is okay to take it away from others who disagree with them. A doctor should have a right to refuse any procedure. The patient would just have to go to another doctor.
I don't care what Obama says or doesn't say.....I don't agree with him period. I do not want more government programs. I do not want more government control. I do not want the spreading of wealth by taking it away from hardworking tax payers and giving it to moochers and illegal immigrants. I do not want cap and trade.
You cannot buy your way out of debt and that is what our government is trying to do. I guess when it is all said and done, we can all turn in our guns and call each other comrade.
Yes, Clinton lied, and I
thought it was terrible when he did.
But Clinton's lies didn't result in a war. Clinton created a surplus. Bush squandered it all and created a huge deficit with his war. I'm amazed that you can't see the huge difference between the two lies. Bush's lies are placing every single American in danger of a terror attack because he refuses to do anything about the borders. This is here. This is now. Why don't you care about TODAY and the futures of your children and their children? We're living in the most dangerous era that America has known, yet you're more concerned about the sexual practices of a former President? I truly don't understand your way of thinking.
I never thought he lied. And I still don't. SM
Yep! Either lied or is incompetent...sm
One fact that's left out is that the head UN inspector urged to allow the inspections to continue and that the WMD that had been reported in the 90's had been mostly destroyed. Why do you think there is none to be found?
So the things the American public was bamboozled about in Iraq (not me) are:
1) Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. It is now in the wake of the war than ever. More of a threat that it was under Saddam.
2) There were WMD. They should have listened to the UN inspectors. Clinton bombed a good deal of the sites in Iraq that had WMD in his term.
3) Connection to 9-11. I'm still waiting on a sound theory for this.
2)
Course it matters. He lied.
VA's have a policy. No demonstrating or protesting on their grounds. It's what laws are for. He said he wasn't protesting but he was lying. Now, in those VA beds are soldiers who were probably wounded in battle. This kind of this does not belong in the VA. Period. Rules are rules.
Bush lied
Bottom line still remains that SADDAM HUSSEIN, himself, could have stopped the whole thing by simply abiding by the U.N. resolutions.
He also lied to Cindy about his age.
He's 17 years older than her. A stupid thing to lie about. He lies just to lie. He lied when he said he would pick a VP who could step into the presidency. (Of all the women in the GOP, this was the best he could do?) He lies about drilling and how that will help the people with gas prices....laughable, but he keeps lying about that too.
Like when SP lied and said her teleprompter
didn't work and it didn't work for like 2 seconds, but she wanted to sound good so she said she didn't have the teleprompt and just winged the speech. Yep, like that.
Obama just sat that and lied through his
Obama also says he hasn't had anything to do with Ayers and that Ayers hasn't been involved with him. AYERS is the very man who jump started Obama's campaign fundraiser. He started the whole thing going! Does he have a conscience?
I didn't and don't like being lied to
and that is exactly what we got from George W. Bush. I was speaking of the events of 9/11 period. What part of that did you not understand?
plumber lied about
his plans to buy a business as he had no money. No plumbing license. Owed back taxes. Was on welfare. He was a fictious dupe who tried to grab the spotlight for his own fortune. How's that book and record deal going?
When you've been lied to
why watch more of the lies. It's obvious on this board that there are a lot of elitist who think that all crats are "brilliant" yet they have no desire to find out the truth of what is happeneing. I already know what is tryng to be accomplished. I don't appreciate being lied to about it. There is no intelligence they are spewing, just more hate, fear-mongering and paranoia upon their supporters. If I want intelligence I will read and watch every single piece of information I can get my hands on from both sides and make up my own mind whether or not I believe it.
Yes, we do want socialism/communism to fail. If you can't understand that, well that my dear is very sad and pathetic in itself.
And calling us un-American because we don't agree with you? Well that statement in itself it un-American. Maybe you should read up on history because you evidently don't know the history of our country and what our founding fathers fought for and died for.
so you don't think pelosi lied?
You think she's above board, an asset to her party?
Still think Bush lied about Iraq?
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Still think Bush lied?
thanks for the link...yep, she flat out lied
Lying seems to be the whole premise of the McCain campaign and she jumped right on board!!!
Obama once again lied - see message
Henry Kissinger was just interviewed. He said he never said to sit down with "no preconditions". Once again another reason I don't trust Obama.
You have lied to the wrong person here.
someone who has familiarity with the Quran, please cite the verses (ayat) and chapters (sura) where you find this information. Do not cite rightwing blogs or hate chambers.
There are so many ways to expose your ignorance here, it is hard to know where to start. Here's a clue for you. There is a distinction in the Quran between Believers (Muslims), People of the Book (Dhimmi), Disbelievers (Kafiroon) and Infidels (Kaafir). You general term of "non-Muslims" applied to the second group....the People of the Book. Bottom line here is that the Quran teaches tolerance and respect for Dhimmi. Not unlike the Christian Bible, it is also riddled with contractions and passages can be found where adversarial relationships are described.
I have lived in a Muslim country. I was treated with nothing but respect, kindness, friendship and hospitality. My sister has lived in a Muslim country for 14 years now. She has enjoyed the same experience.
The only hatemongering going on here is spewing from your own mouth. Whatever it is you have been reading or watching is making a liar out of you. If you care, do something about it. If not, then bone up on your own Holy Book and check out what the Bible has to say about the liars and give it some careful consideration.
ALL Americans are being lied to and screwed over -
by government, utilities, oil companies, tobacco industry, healthcare industry, insurance industry, auto industry, food industry, etc. The list is so long, that probably the easier way to do it would be to list who ISN'T screwing Americans:
1. Ummmm..... hmmmm.....
Let me get back to ya on that one; I can't find anyone who isn't screwing us.
okay, I read them, but I do not see where Obama lied??? nm
x
Obama lied about smoking too....... sm
Are you going to be watching for what else he lied about?
Barack Obama was on Meet the Press Sunday, and moderator Tom Brokaw put the president-elect's feet to the fire: MR. BROKAW: Finally, Mr. President-elect, the White House is a no-smoking zone, and when you were asked about this recently by Barbara Walters, I read it very carefully, you ducked. Have you stopped smoking? PRES.-ELECT OBAMA: You know, I have, but what I said was that, you know, there are...
http://www.eaglevuedaily.com/?p=224
I know...they lied through the teeth....we had to switch channels....and they were on....sm
everywhere else too. Only dems, only one rep that I saw.
Tell a lie (and/or a bunch of lies) often enough, and it becomes the truth according to them, as reported and supported by the media.
Sickening really.
Obama lied, economists cried...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/obama_lied_economists_cried.html
Bush lied and thousands died!
Reaping the rewards.
*Gasp!* Jindal LIED???? LOLOLOLOL - thanks!!!
nm
So you have no problem that he put his hand on a Bible and lied under oath? nm
Anita Hill lied - there were two sides to the case
Only Thomas and Hill know what really happened. When this case was ongoing I was a democrat, yet I believed Thomas. People need to read the case and decide for themsleves. Just because Anita Hill said there was sexual harrassment doesn't mean it's true. I was on jury duty for a full week for a girl who said her boyfriend raped her. With her crying on the witness stand and carrying on I believed she was. On the fifth day we were all dismissed from duty, the girl told her lawyer that he really did not rape her and she made it up because she was made at him. Please don't go by just the link below either. Do some more researching, but from what I read of this article I don't think it's leaning towards one or the other side. All I'm saying is there are two sides of the story. By your post I'm sure if he was a democrat who wasn't getting ready to look over the info about the O you would praise him as a great judge.
http://volokh.com/posts/1191302418.shtml
If they hadn't lied - we wouldn't be in this war with a faceless enemy....nm
x
of course he lied - but no one died - he had a young daughter to protect...
All men would lie - when, in fact, it was nobody's freakin' business........that was Hillary's problem
Obama lied to the country. "No earmarks"
nm
Bush lied and our brave patriotic soldiers died..PERIOD
Of course Bush lied about WMD and the threat of Iraq..He needed a reason to invade Iraq..If you would do some research you would find many papers that document meetings between Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle and others who devised a way to take over the Middle East in the 1990's..all they needed was a way to present it to the American people, as we would not allow our children to die for no reason. With 9/11, they got the reason and tried to tie up 9/11 with Iraq..I, frankly, think they also had a hand in 9/11..For any who poo poo this..I ask you to do some surfing on the Northwoods Operation..same kind of thing, only in the 1960's..Let a few CIA Hispanic/Cuban operatives invade a few curise ships on Floridas coast, kill a few Americans and we would definitely agree to invading Cuba and killing Casto..Our govt did not agree to it, however, 9/11 seems to me like an updated plan..there are many who also wonder was this an inside job..
Here's the story. sm
Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 10:51 p.m. EDT
RFK Jr.: Bush, Barbour to Blame for Katrina
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is blaming Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, along with President Bush, for causing Hurricane Katrina.
As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, it’s worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush’s iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2, Kennedy blogged Tuesday on HuffingtonPost.com. The influential Democrat's enviro-conspiracy theory had the sinister Gov. Barbour engineering Bush's energy policy on behalf of the president’s major donors from the fossil fuel industry.
Kennedy charges that in March 2001, the former Republican National Committee chairman issued an urgent memo to the White House on CO2 emissions.
With that, the president dropped his pro-environment campaign promise like a hot potato.
Because of Bush and Barbour's CO2 folly, said Kennedy: Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged.
RFK, Jr., even suggested that Katrina's last minute detour through Mississippi was a bit of Divine payback, declaring:
Perhaps it was Barbour’s memo that caused Katrina, at the last moment, to spare New Orleans and save its worst flailings for the Mississippi coast.
Another take on the story....
Republicans on the Record
What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.
The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.
Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.
In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
It has been maintained all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there.
When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first outsiders to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President
JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.
His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.
His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.
The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.
For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.
After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.
Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.
As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.
The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.
The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act
When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.
Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.
Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.
Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.
Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Man From Illinois
In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.
He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters in protest.
Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.
Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.
The Republican swing votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.
As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill.
In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a clean bill as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.
This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the swing Republicans.
On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.
In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:
There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied.
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.
This does not tell the whole story either...
See below:
What is SCHIP?
The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created by Congress in 1997 and is funded by both the federal government and the states. The program is designed to help states initiate and expand the provision of child health insurance to uninsured, low-income children.
SCHIP is administered by the states which have three options for providing SCHIP coverage. They can:
create separate SCHIP programs;
expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s Medicaid plan (a Medicaid SCHIP program); or
use both approaches in combination.
Within federal guidelines, states determine their SCHIP program(s):
design,
eligibility rules,
benefits packages,
payment levels, and
administrative and operating procedures.
At the federal level, SCHIP is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services though the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
There is nothing here about enrolling all the children in private insurance. That is at the discretion of the states. According to this they can expand the Medicaid coverage for SCHIP...government administered. At the federal level, it is administered by Medicare/Medicaid. Goverment administered. So to say it is not government administered is an untruth.
"Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
That is also an untruth. This is from the bill itself:
SEC. 110. LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR STATES THAT PROPOSE TO COVER CHILDREN WITH EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME THAT EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE.
(a) FMAP Applied to Expenditures- Section 2105(c) (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(8) LIMITATION ON MATCHING RATE FOR EXPENDITURES FOR CHILD HEALTH ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO CHILDREN WHOSE EFFECTIVE FAMILY INCOME EXCEEDS 300 PERCENT OF THE POVERTY LINE-
`(A) FMAP APPLIED TO EXPENDITURES- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Federal medical assistance percentage (as determined under section 1905(b) without regard to clause (4) of such section) shall be substituted for the enhanced FMAP under subsection (a)(1) with respect to any expenditures for providing child health assistance or health benefits coverage for a targeted low-income child whose effective family income would exceed 300 percent of the poverty line but for the application of a general exclusion of a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or type of income.
`(B) EXCEPTION- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any State that, on the date of enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, has an approved State plan amendment or waiver to provide, or has enacted a State law to submit a State plan amendment to provide, expenditures described in such subparagraph under the State child health plan.'.
It does NOT exclude coverage for those OVER the 300% marker. It only limits matching funds. And you notice it says EXCEEDS 300% of the poverty line. So anything UP TO 300% of the poverty line would be covered under the proposal sent to Bush, which equals the $82,600. Bush understands the bill better than this guy does. It does leave it open for New York or anywhere else to put people on the program right up to $82,600 per year income. Just like Bush said. I did not make this up. It is copied directly from the bill that is posted on the Library of Congress website.
Just making sure the whole story is told.
here is that story...
Commissioner dismissal controversy
On July 11, 2008, Governor Palin dismissed Walter Monegan as Commissioner of Public Safety and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he subsequently turned down.[44][45] Monegan alleged shortly after his dismissal that it may have been partly due to his reluctance to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[46] In 2006, before Palin was governor, Wooten was briefly suspended for ten days for threatening to kill McCann's (and Palin's) father, tasering his 11-year-old stepson (at the stepson's request), and violating game laws. After a union protest, the suspension was reduced to five days.[47]
Governor Palin asserts that her dismissal of Monegan was unrelated to the fact that he had not fired Wooten, and asserts that Monegan was instead dismissed for not adequately filling state trooper vacancies, and because he "did not turn out to be a team player on budgeting issues."[48] Palin acknowledges that a member of her administration, Frank Bailey, did contact the Department of Public Safety regarding Wooten, but both Palin and Bailey say that happened without her knowledge and was unrelated to her dismissal of Monegan.[48] Bailey was put on leave for two months for acting outside the scope of his authority as the Director of Boards and Commissions.
In response to Palin's statement that she had nothing to hide, in August 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired Steve Branchflower to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal, though lawmakers acknowledge that "Monegan and other commissioners serve at will, meaning they can be fired by Palin at any time."[49] The investigation is being overseen by Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who says that the Palin administration has been cooperating and thus subpoenas are unnecessary.[50] The Palin administration itself was the first to release an audiotape of Bailey making inquiries about the status of the Wooten investigation.[48][51]
I think the story is entirely possible, but unlikely.
I have done a little bit of poking around and read a few other tidbits here and there and formed my opinion.
Everyone keeps saying that her water broke while she was in Texas, but it did not technically. She was just leaking fluid, and she was not in labor. She had had 4 kids and knew she was not yet in labor and discussed that with her doctor, who gave her the go-ahead to fly. That is not that unusual to me.
She waited a long time to announce her pregnancy. Okay, but probably the reason she waited was because she already knew the baby had Down's (she reportedly found out in December) and knew that there was a higher chance that she would miscarry. Rather than announce her pregnancy, then lose her baby, she chose to keep it private until she was more certain she would indeed carry to term. I understand that. I also think that she probably needed the time to process how her family would adapt to a special needs child, and wrap her mind around it, so to speak. Not to mention the fact that a fifth child is not usually announced with the pomp and circumstance of a first baby. That is typical.
As far as her not looking pregnant, that happens all the time. I remember seeing Pamela Anderson on a talk show and she was 7 or 8 months' pregnant. I was shocked at how tiny she was. She looked barely pregnant, and her baby wasn't even extra small when it was born. DIfferent women carry differently and Governor Palin was dressing in jackets and other clothing which would hide a bulge.
I saw the picture of her daughter and that was completely unconvincing as well. Girls wear shirts tight across the tummy like that all the time, even if they are chubby in the midsection. It is very common. If she was pregnant and trying to it it while posing for a family photo, wouldn't she choose different clothing?
All that being said, even if it were to turn out to be true, I wouldn't hold it against her for claiming the child as her own in order to protect her daughter and the baby. I don't see anything wrong in hiding a teenage pregnancy if it can be successfully hidden. No one should be proud of being unwed and pregnant. It's too bad that so many young girls think absolutely nothing of it, an actually get pregnant on purpose knowing full well that the baby's father will never be a part of its life. That is part of what is wrong with our society today.
thanks for your story
We must be nearly the same age because I know several women who were pressured into giving their children away and they are still haunted by that decision to this day. You are correct about the damage Palin is doing to her daughter.
What the..? What was there ONE story about someone
have been SP's doing ?? You make it sound like she handed down firings to several thousand. LOL But hey, if she's that powerful and good at putting her plans into action, then maybe I will vote for McCain/Palin.
Let me tell you a story
Back in the early 70s, I was a single mom, going through a divorce, and no job. My son was only 1-1/2 years old. I needed help and had no one. I went to Welfare to see if they could help me. I got some money for an apartment and food stamps.
After 5 months, I found a job, told welfare I was going off it because I didn't need the help anymore. Well, they absolutely begged me to stay on it for at least another year. Needless to say, it was harder to get OFF it than to get on it. I just couldn't get it through their heads that I didn't want their handouts. I had a standing invitation to come back anytime.
Well, fast forward 8 years. My new husband's job went down the tubes and we went through all our savings, living paycheck to paycheck on mine. Went back to welfare to see if we could at least get food stamps for our 2 kids now. Nope! I earned $11 too much. They told us to sell the cars and the house we were buying and then maybe, just maybe, we would qualify for everything. No way!
Needless to say, we had a friend who owned a bar and served sandwiches and soup. He let my husband work for him doing odd jobs around his property and paid him in leftover soup and sandwiches. Hubby was also able to pick up a few other odd jobs and that's how we survived for 2 years. We had a woodburner and cut and split our own wood, had seeds given to us and grew our own garden in the summer. We survived, but it wasn't easy. The only thing nice about it was my children learned about survival and my husband and I never gained any weight.The kids ate first, then hubby because his odd jobs were tougher than mine, and I ate last.
To this day, I can't look at a plate of spaghetti, soup, or chili. LOL
I actually got the story from CNN ....
Just sayin ... 
And in a related story...
...*Curious George* wants to know who's visiting porn sites. Hmmmmmm... thought spying was only supposed to be used to catch *terrorists*....
U.S., Google Set to Face Off in Court
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterTue Mar 14, 8:16 AM ET
The Bush administration will renew its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government.
Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google are expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a San Jose hearing scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware.
It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, Calif.-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses.
The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.
Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets.
The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.
The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google — and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.
Although the Justice Department says it doesn't want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.
The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally, Berman said. While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.
Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines — Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.
Cooperating with the government is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down, Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.
Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.
The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.
Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.
The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.
I only posted one story. sm
And the subject, to me, is Ward Churchill has his deception, not AIM. I would think as an OP, you would be more in tune to what the OP publications are saying about him.
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this. Thank you!
I only found one story on this. sm
From an obscure site called Rogers Cadenhead. The remainder of the stories, from the LA Times, etc., did not include anything about U.S. Troops protecting the Hezbollah sympathizers.
|
