The specific issue is irrelavant to my point
Posted By: sm on 2008-08-21
In Reply to: Well, if you have the guts, go to the site... - BTS employee
I was in no way arguing the whole abortion issue. Passionate feelings on both sides. I'm staying out of that. What I was trying to say is this bill is typical future-ammo stuff done by both sides. Here is an example: I am a legislator and draw up a bill (the idea of which was probably pushed on me by a lobbyist). I call it the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act. The bulk of the bill talks about harsh punishments for pedophiles, one strike and you're out, life in jail, that kind of thing. But there is a little clause in there that says that at trial the pedophile victims have to come face-to-face with the pedophile and describe in detail what happened to them and be subject to the pedophile's lawyer's cross examination. I know my opponents are all for harsh punishments but don't want to subject the victims to that kind of trauma in court, so I know they will vote no. Then when election time comes I can say my opponent voted against the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act and thus must want to let peophiles walk the street. I know this is not true, but I knew they would vote no due to wording that left out would have changed their vote.
It's all politics and it happens all the time.
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
And I think everyone that thinks the issue of his BC is not important is missing the point..
if indeed he was born elsewhere and he is hiding it, what a way to start a presidency. What else will he hide or lie about. JUST have a judge look at your certificate and validate it for EVERYONE, so that we can feel comfortable in knowing.
I know this is somewhat irrelavant since the Dems are going to win
in November. I am an Obama supporter but also a political junkie, so for me it's interesting to try to figure out who McCain is going to pick for VP, even if it doesn't matter in the end.
McCain was on SLN cracking jokes about how old he was. I'll give him points for the self-deprecating humor.
I should have been more specific
Maybe "reformed' would have been a better choice. I would not consider the Southern Baptists mainstream anymore. There have been many changes in that denomination pushing it much further right, and it has changed a lot over the years.
Can you be more specific?
What is your impression of his "drug policies?" What poor black man ever went to jail for getting some doctor to forge prescriptions for him? It sounds like you are talking about someone caught dealing for personal gain (money), not because they were addicted. Most dealers don't use. I would say 95% of them don't use and less than that are addicted. So could you be more specific on what you think John McCain had to do with putting poor black men in jail for forging prescriptions or using political clout to get someone to forge them for them. Because that is what Cindy McCain did. I am just trying to understand here.
Could you be a tad more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
I am interested in how Obama smoked the Constitution (what's left of it) and just when he stood by while the flag burned? While you are at it, please provide your sources. Otherwise, I can't reply to the rest of your post since I gave my Magic 8 ball to my neighbor's little sister when I was 11 and never replaced my Tarot cards after my college roommate stole them back in ྈ.
How about being a bit more specific?
Medicare and Medicaid, but what I want to know is why bother to post if you can't back yourself up with a logical argument, examples, sources for your info or something....ANYTHING? Otherwise, these sweeping generalized predictions of failure are just more sour grapes cat calls.
Can you be more specific, please?
1. Exactly which "19th century" principles should the Republicans abandon or "modernize"?
2. What evidence is there that "evangelicals" are "running the party", please?
Thank you - and I hope you'll provide something cogent for discussion instead of supporting your talking-points with more talking-points, so that we can have a good discussion about this.
Could you be more specific? Or maybe . . .
you're talking about the part where he talked about his father being Muslim and you misunderstood that he said it was his religion. It would be most helpful if you could post the exact portion of that speech, please. I pretty much listened to the whole thing, and I don't believe there was any part in there where he professed to be Muslum.
No,actually, they are more specific in their bias...
they are definitely more biased toward the clintons than democrats in general. But it is obviously that the mainstream media are all Obama adorers. That's why I take what is reported there with a grain of salt. And if I want to know ANYthing about conservatives Fox is my only choice.
I am sure no one here can deny with a straight face that the mainstream media has a left bias. lol.
not specific enough to draw
an inference from your post. Vague.
I was trying not to be gender specific
Care to be more specific?..(sm)
You might want to look up his voting record before you go there.
That is not what I said. I will have to search for the specific case...
in this case, the school had a rule banning any kind of religious symbol. A girl wore a cross to school and she was told to take it off and not wear it again. The same school tried to ban a Muslim student from wearing a head covering on the same basis. The ACLU took the school to court (actually I think it was settled out of court) on behalf of the Muslim student to be able to wear her head covering. They did this without being hired by the Muslim student. They did not argue on behalf of the Christian girl at the same time. The Muslim got to wear the head covering but the other girl still could not wear the cross. That is what I am talking about. I did not say that the ACLU sought to ban it. I am saying that they took on the cause of the Muslim girl, but not the Christian girl. And to me, that is discrimination.
I don't know it to be a fact, but I think if that Christian girl specifically asked the ACLU to support her case they would have refused. The last thing the ACLU wants to do is argue on behalf of a Christian to practice Christianity, even in something so small as wearing a cross to school.
And yes, there are many schools who ban religious symbols because of that gross misinterpretation of the first ammendment...the free exercise thereof totally left out, and the words separation of church and state supplied, which do not even exist in the constitution.
Where does it give a specific age in the Bible? nm
I would really like to see this scripture if you can refer me to it.
The question was specific to marijuana
but frankly, I do not care what anybody else consumes. That includes maryjane, and so my vote is yes.
Not necessarily any specific speech
that changed the trend in Europe, but what those countries see happening in the US the last 6 months.
For decades, whenever there was trouble anywhere in the world, a natural disaster, an epidemic, an out-of-control dictator, a genocide, they could always count on the US to send money (more than any other nation), materiel and personnel to bail them out and fix the problem. Now the rest of the world sees our government bankrupting itself (Obama's mouth writing checks his wallet can't cover) and they must realize that they're going to be pretty much on their own from here on out. They have to get ready to take care of themselves, and rein in their own out-of-control governments.
Nope, not any specific speech he gave, but I think everyone in the EU must see the handwriting on the wall. They are starting to take measures to protect themselves. About time. It's just ironic that we are not moving into the place they are abandoning.
No issue is no issue. Denying that
nm
Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
George's Interview with her on this specific subject
I think she's on drugs...or else she's ready to run for president...or else she trying to undermine O before he even gets going. Watch and see. Good heavens, she's going off the deep end. She's a big mouth, as is Barney Fife, Harry Reid, and the others. They've been trying to run this country since before the bailout. If O is smart, he'll soon shut them all up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html
Aacks Cyndiee - I guess I should have been more specific
in my message because I've read a lot of your posts and I agree with you most of the time.
There are however other people who don't watch a variety and only listen to the words of Olberman and Matthews and don't even listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh but put them down. Those are whom I was talking about.
You have always presented yourself very well versed in a lot of different topics and sometimes I wish I could articulate myself as well.
Say what?? I am talking about a specific person whom I personally think...sm
is over-the-top, an embarrasmment to the President in many ways because of her ultra-liberal stance, but I am not "bashing" any Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else in particular here except Ms. Pelosi herself, and I was trying put a teensy tiny bit of humor on the board, sorry I did not pass it by you first, and you make no sense here because I am generally Democratic, not that that has anything to do with this?????? Wow, I honestly gave you more credit for intelligence and fairness than that.
If there already exist specific written policies
pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.
If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.
However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.
If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.
Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!
Don't know which board or which specific Iranian you're referring to.
If you want me to read something, then post it, so I can, but please don't suggest that I go on some kind of wild goose chase on some other unnamed *board* for a post by some unnamed *Iranian.* I simply don't have that kind of time.
If you don't think the Iranian president is nuts, then blame the media and the administration because that's he way he's been portrayed by both, and his actions sure suggest that he is. Please post his redeeming qualities as you see them.
I posted this because I thought it was humorous, yet dead on accurate in the way a lot of Americans feel.
Get the picture? 
It is not the same at all, not picking on a specific group,race, or ethnicity....sm
as a matter of fact, some of my worst dictators are AMERICAN, they hate dictating and so act like little kids and speed talk, trip all over their words, slur everything together, mispronounce without correcting themselves, chew, burp, rattle papers and x-rays, etc., and then will correct several paragraps because they "forgot" this or that. At least foreign docs have an excuse, and many try to enuniciate clearly, spell things, out, etc. There is no comparison here...complaining about high percentage of difficult docs in your queue is not the same as drawing a "cartoon" that points directly in one direction, is poorly disguised, and is dispersed and disseminated in a national, hugely circulated newpaper.
I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class?
x
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.
Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming my world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction. They are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say?
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.
Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming a world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not exactly have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction they employ in order to "secure" themselves.
The Palestinians are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say? This might just account for the lop-sided fatalities/injuries ratios between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In closing, it is worth noting that even with the advantage of all those terrorist toys and tools our tax dollars have bestowed upon them, security and peace of mind just seem to be further and further beyond their reach. Wonder why that is?
yes, I asked you...but I asked you a specific question...
about the peace movement. I asked why you did not take your ideals to the real enemies of peace...and your answer was that you leave them to God but will instead preach to us not to fight them, even when they bring the fight to us. So be it.
We will agree to disagree.
I did not personally call you a whiner. As to who sent the military...I will say one thing. When you join the military, you take an oath. That oath has been posted here. You are under no illusions. You know that you may be called to war. It is an all voluntary army over there now. There is no draft. No one is over there because they were forced to go.
As to the people sending having never been...what has that got to do with anything?It was not just George Bush and Dick Cheney, Lurker. It was Congress. Many in Congress do have relatives, even sons and daughters, in Iraq. Have you read the resolution? It is very clear. They knew exactly what they were signing and exactly what it meant. I do not buy the lied to hooey. The Senate and House intelligence committees got the same briefings, or at least enough briefings to vote for the resolution. If they did not (in their own words) use due diligence before signing off on that resolution, whose fault is that? Certainly not Dick Cheney's or George Bush's.
Where were all these people when Clinton was calling for regime change? Because he was a Democrat they will follow him to war? You will see why I do not buy into their rhetoric.
And while I understand your big picture, as I have said over and over and you have never addressed, that will work only if the others in the big picture wish it to work. And if you honestly feel that God wishes that you lay down and let this country be overrun by terrorists, then so be it. I am not of the same mind.
The big difference is that I believe, as did Americans at the time of the Revolution, and that Americans did at the time of the Civil War...and that even some Americans did at the time of Viet Nam...some things are worth dying for. Most of our volunteer military feels the same.
When that is no longer the case, if you are successful in robbing that sense of patriotism from the generations to come without changing the minds of the enemies, where they feel that nothing is worth dying for...in my mind that will only bring death quicker, not keep it at bay, and the loss of the greatest nation on the face of this earth.
So, we agree to disagree.
God bless.
There is no issue here.
0
What was the issue again?
nm
For it - should not be an issue
It should not be an issue period. It does not affect me (or anyone else) if Joe & John or Mary & Sara want to get married. As human beings we all have that right.
Civil Union is not the same thing. Talk about discrimination big time. Yes, you love each other but sorry, your of the wrong sex?????
What's next you can only be white to be married or a black and white, hispanic and black or any other combination won't be able to marry.
This is one more issue that should not be political. People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to and tell everyone else to mind their own business.
this is not a big issue
Your point of view has been expressed. Constant repetition only weakens your case. If you felt strongly that this was true, you would be confident that you would be proved right and not have to beat a dead horse. Be a member of polite society and consider others' time and interests before you attempt to monopolize a free forum with only your one point over and over.
This is a big issue to some of us...
and we are not just repeating ourselves. We are posting new info for others WHO CARE to read it. If you are not interested and do not care, DON'T READ IT.
Interesting post by someone on another site:
ladyplumber10:35AMDec 3rd 2008
When you have 4 different citizenships in question, American, British, Indonesian, and Kenyan, and multiple different names :Barack Obama, aka, Barry Soreto, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham...you folks who think this is a piece of cake to wade through are nuts. It's like untangling a badly knotted necklace.
There is a great interview with Alan Keyes on why he is suing Mr Obama in the CA Sumpreme Court in Essence magazine...
http://www.essence.com/news_entertainment/news/articles/alankeyesobama
also it is known that Mr Obama's passport in 1981 at the age of 20 was Indonesian. Ever wonder WHY he has sealed all of his college records @ Columbia and Harvard...likely because he came in under Indonesian
citizenship and qulaified for foreign student grants.
For those of you who think that the certificate shown on his web site is sufficient:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80931
PART 1
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's LONG LEGAL original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."
(From Alan Keyes suite against the Sec of State of CA and demanding they hold back the 55 electoral votes)
For those of you who think that even if he was born to an American overseas..he is still a US Citizen...
NOT SO. for the law from 1952-1986 (Obama was born in 1961) states that to an American Citizen and one alien parent in wedlock, the American parent must have resided in the US for 5 years beyond the age of 14 (or the age of 19)Mr Obama's mother was 18 when he was born, so he wouldn't qualify.
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html
For those of you who think that he has to have been checked out this far into the game...think again. I met with my DC House REP face to face who said that officials voted into office by the public, don't get checked out...my own rep never had been nor do US senators. The FBI doesn't get involved in political matters, and there is NO PRIOR legal precedent for a prez candidate that wants to keep his life "private". Remember Hillary was the first to challenge his citizenship...but took his short cert of live birth as his long legal birth certificate. This document is not offical enough to get him a passport. So whose job is it to approve a candidate...the candidates own party according to the FBI agent that I interviewed...can you say conflict of interest?! It is also the job of each individual sec of state. Personally, for the prez national election, I think it should be the job of the US Sec of State. Each state sec of state can certify state candidates. FOLKS-this has not resurfaced...it has never left.. but the Obama loving main stream media won't cover it, because they will wind up with egg all over their face. I think a few things are cool: one, that Alan Keyes is the one in CA suing, but no one can call the race card as he is black. Justice Clarence Thomas took the supreme court case, and again no one can call a race card. My DC rep feels that every court in the nation will find a loop hole to dismiss for fear of rioting. I told him that men are fighting and dying overseas to protect our freedoms and our constitution..why should they if we won't protect it from within? Also if the courts were afraid of rioting in the 1950s&1960s SEGREGATION might still be alive today! I would love to see a black man as prez, but not one who had to speak deceit and lies to get there. Let's NOT be in such a hurry to make history, that we are doing nothing to protect history...and to protect our constitution....
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/01/obama-birth-certificate-rears-its-ugly-head-again/197#comments
That's not the issue and you know it.
Constitution baby, constitution!
Well, now that's another issue...(sm)
I would argue that the New Deal actually did help the economy, but it wasn't large enough. During the New Deal the GDP steadily grew with the exception of one period where FDR actually slacked off with his programs and instead did tax cuts. Unemployment also went down during this period. I know Fox is saying the New Deal didn't work, but the numbers don't support that theory.
See charts below:
EXACTLY!! This isn't a pub/dem issue.........
this is a BIG GOVERNMENT issue. The kind of government that thinks they own the citizens. Of course, Obama's spend spend spend plan is the most outrageous in U.S. history and that's an understatement, but both sides should be ashamed of themselves. I get so sick of seeing the democrats on this board sit idly by as if they are in the right and just point fingers at anyone they perceive as republicans. They forget.......WE ARE THE CITIZENS. I don't give a rat's butt WHO is in office.....NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE MY MONEY AND TAX THE CRAP OUT OF ITS CITIZENS. The government works for us but unfortunately too many in this country have become ignorant to that fact, either by choice or lack of proper education as to their history, constitution, and what that entails of its citizens. They feels no loyalty to this country and do not understand the government is not there to be their leader and caregiver. The government is supposed to work for us and us only, not the United Nations, not some stupid foreign country who has us in their pocket, the Americans of this country....... NOT ILLEGALS EITHER!
We have gotten so far away from the meaning of our constitution; it's not taught in our schools....should we be surprised. After all,our schools are bought and paid for by the government you pay for without any say in the school system, and a bunch of one-sided thinking lamebrains decide the curriculum, so what better than to destroy the constitution so the children never understand anything about loyalty or pride for their country. Instead, they grow up thinking their government is the be all and end all of their lives and without that, we would be nobodies. PLEEZE!!!!
For all those that continue to point at Bush.....HE'S GONE FOLKS!! GET OVER IT! NOW YOU CAN START POINTING FINGERS AT OBAMA!! He's spending and making fake money as fast as he can light up another cigarette.
Obama has no excuse for this disaster he is putting us in.
The reason the majority do not speak up against their tyranical government is because they have become so complacent and when you think about all those who stand or think they stand to come out ahead with this government, they have no problem with sitting back and letting it happen. The day we stop letting illegals vote and special interest groups run this country, we might actually get our country back but that's won't happen until our complacent LEGAL citizens get off their duffs and actually stand up for their country.
Most don't even care and that's what the government is betting on......everyone's lack of education (government schools!) or interest.
The issue is
that men shouldn't be marrying men and women shouldn't be marrying women. The parts don't fit together and it's immoral. Giving them that special "right" will take away the rights of those who believe this behavior is immoral and the right to say so. They should have NEVER been given such a ludicrous "right." And the religious community will keep fighting to right wrongs. :-)
The Rove issue
From the Christian Science monitor online-- an interesting commentary on the Rove issue.
(I note per the Conservative board that Mr. Wilson is now being vilified.)
|
from the July 15, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p09s02-cods.html
Rove leak is just part of larger scandalBy Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.
In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."
Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.
No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.
One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.
The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
• Daniel Schorr is the senior news analyst at National Public Radio. |
Why won't you debate the issue
because you can't back up what you are saying, I assume. You just point fingers and call names like that's winning a debate.
It is really a much larger issue than you think. sm
There are 12,000 New York City resident signatures, as well as 15 NY legislators on this petion alone:
Preamble to the Complaint and Petition
We, the complainant signatories below, petition the Attorney General of New York, on behalf of millions of New Yorkers who also call for a fearless independent inquiry; for the sake of residents, workers, and business owners in New York—most particularly in and near Ground Zero; and also on behalf of other Americans who have lost employees, friends, and family members as well as health, business, and personal assets and civil, privacy, and other rights in the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath.
We approach your office as concerned citizens desiring to bring to light the truth about the events of 9/11. And where fault and liability may be found through your investigative action (by whatever means), we seek the recovery of billions of dollars of damages that have been sustained and continue to accrue, and a process by which the true perpetrators and aiders and abettors of the 9/11 attacks may speedily be brought to justice.
As we reported previously to your office, a representative poll published by Zogby International on August 30 of this year found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New Yorkers overall believe there was official foreknowledge and conscious acceptance of the 9/11 attacks, and that 66 percent of city residents and 56 percent overall want a new investigation. These findings are stunning and we believe they provide conclusive evidence that the people of New York are not satisfied that official investigations and mainstream news media have adequately addressed the truth of the events of that fateful day.
These Zogby Poll findings point to the immediate consituency for our Complaint and Petition; but we also note here that a burgeoning nationwide movement also holds to the same belief about 9/11 as do these native New Yorkers. Fifteen legislators who are members from New York in the US House of Representatives, New York State Senate and Assembly, and New York City Council have responded to these results by also expressing support for a new investigation by the Attorney General or Congress.
If this belief of millions of citizens is borne out by a legitimate investigation, then it may follow that the responsible officials are guilty of both mass murder and treason, as well as conspiring to inflict untold suffering upon the people of New York and violating a host of New York State laws, in addition to federal terrorist, treason, and other laws.
Clearly, this Complaint and Petition concerns a supremely serious matter. Yet we the complainants contend that no independent official investigation into these alarming yet plausible allegations, for which we present compelling evidence herein, has ever been held or is now contemplated.
When citizens of New York widely suspect appalling criminal activity within our government and by bad actors doing business in the State of New York—activity that has caused us grievous harm—we believe we are well within our rights as sovereign citizens to demand the legal and investigative means to address these concerns. If indeed there exists such a widespread belief that our own government intentionally allowed such a catastrophe to occur on our own shores, then we submit that this is prima facie evidence of a deep crisis of trust in government. We were therefore inspired to read the Attorney General‘s 2002 Law Day address in regard to this issue of restoring public trust in our institutions. You focused then on financial markets, charities, and churches, but we believe your words aptly address the collapse of faith in government that the 9/11 Zogby Poll reveals today:
It is important that we understand that this crisis exists, that it has already damaged important institutions, and that we must take immediate action to restore the faith of a betrayed public…The process of restoring a shattered trust is a lengthy one. Unfortunately, we do not have time to wait…Too much will be lost during the time that this process naturally unfolds; the skepticism and distrust that exists will continue to exact a tremendous cost…Our system of law can provide—indeed, can itself be—the solution to the crisis created by the betrayal of their trust. [2]
And it is precisely in this same spirit—that of invoking the legitimacy of a lawful solution to the issue of 9/11—that we request your intervention in order to swiftly address the grave concerns outlined below, enforce accountability, and restore the public trust.
As Attorney General, you hold ultimate responsibility for enforcing public safety, criminal, and investor protection laws in the State of New York. As indicated in the Zogby Poll, a clear majority of your constituents desires a full investigation of still unanswered questions either by Congress or your office. We provide herein evidence to prove that Congress and the 9/11 Commission have shown themselves incapable of such an inquiry. We are left with no alternative but to turn to you to take up the case we have put forth in this Complaint and Petition.
We therefore respectfully request that you immediately invoke your powers to open one or more urgent investigations into apparent crimes before, during, and after September 11, 2001. This could be accomplished by your office alone or in conjunction with other state and local legal and enforcement offices with jurisdiction (which might include, for example, other state attorneys general and the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau).
We firmly believe that we are able to show probable cause for convening a grand jury and that we present herein the necessary facts and lines of inquiry that would lead reasonable persons to believe that numerous still-unsolved crimes have taken place.
In this Complaint and Petition, we submit compelling evidence constituting probable cause that some or all of the following crimes and possible additional crimes have been committed and that you have jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of such crimes: murder, criminally negligent homicide or manslaughter; assault; reckless endangerment; official misconduct; criminal offenses relating to public safety; enterprise corruption; obstruction of justice and the infliction of emotional distress, including causing untold suffering and billions of dollars in damages on the citizens, businesses, and institutions of and upon the State of New York itself and cities, counties, and other jurisdictions within New York; and the criminal facilitation or solicitation thereof and conspiracy or accessorial conduct in connection therewith.
In summary, we submit that available evidence demonstrates that the requisite state of mind exists, pointing to (1) negligence as would be appropriate for assigning civil liability, and (2) an intentional, knowing, or reckless state of mind as would be required for assigning criminal liability.
You are making it an issue
You are trying to defend Merv Griffin when no one said anything bad about him or that he was not a conservative. All that was stated was what he commented about the vote, nothing more or less. You are reading much more into it than I ever intended. Dont waste your time looking up more information about Merv, who cares? His comment is what his comment was. Goodness, LOL. Dustin Hoffman also made a comment on Letterman that the democrats taking over the House and Senate was a historic day. It was a comment nothing more. I must state, though, that the audience also clapped, whistled, cheered when Dustin said that.
We will never agree on this issue.
I think all children deserve free or at least affordable health care right now. I think that should be this country's #1 priority, and sadly, it is not. I don't care what facts you throw at me, the truth is many children are going without health insurance because many families have to choose between buying groceries and paying the enormous premiums, and sometimes you just have to choose what is most important to survive right now.
I'm disgusted every time someone has to have a fundraiser when their kid gets cancer just to pay the medical bills. I'm disgusted that families lose their houses every day because they have to sell them to pay off medical bills. This bill may not have solved all of those problems, but it would have been a step in the right direction.
So go ahead and spout your pro-life "every baby deserves a chance to live" speeches, and then when that same child gets diabetes and can't afford healthcare, go ahead and look away and act like that child no longer matters.
Why is gay marriage an issue?
Can someone explain to me why gay marriage is an issue in politics? I don't think it's ever been explained. I have heard the religious people say they want to keep the sanctity of marriage preserved to be between a man and a woman, and I can understand that. On the other side, I've heard gays and lesbians say that they've lived their lives with another person who happens to be the same sex as they are and they just want to be able to have the same rights as married people if something should happen to their partner, and I certainly do understand that too. I guess I don't understand why it is a political issue. To me if John and Jack or Mary and Sue want to get married that doesn't affect what I do with my life on a day to day basis or how I live my own life (at least I don't think it would have an impact). So just wanted to know why I'm always hearing this issue during campaigns. - Thanks.
You are the one making an issue (sm)
out of his middle name. So what if someone posts his middle name? What do YOU have to be worried about? It appears that she cut and pasted an article written by someone else. Had you not written a huge post about the name *Hussein,* many would not have even given it a second thought.
It would not be an issue if he had not made it one. nm
nm
Experience issue will not go away soon.
Whether or not a candidate is "ready" to lead is the voter's prerogative to investigate...or not. I hate nasty politics too and often will turn a blind eye to it. On the other hand, checking into it from time to time does give one a better perspective on just how divided our country has become and what issues flames the fires of discontent the most. Voters also decide whether malcontents should be left to stew in their own juices or if they are addressing legitimate, common concerns in an inappropriate manner that require attention from our highest leadership.
Beyond that, judgments must be made as to which candidate, party, issues, policies, etc. best represent not only the individual's best interests and their vision of what America is or is not, but also the best interest of the nation as a whole...another purely subjective and biased concept, depending on who you talk to. It's the nature of the beast.
What I believe about research is that it is much more valuable as a process, rather than a final destination. If one is able to come out of their comfort zone and expose themselves to many sides of the same issue, it is their own reactions and gut instincts that will help them better identify, define, prioritize, express and embody their own personal political beliefs. If the objective of research is a drive-by pot shot, the insight gained will be as fleeting and as memorable as chat room archives.
I see you did not issue the same warning for ...
BDayes...but then, why would you? Hitch up your skirt, your double standard is showing.
character issue
McSame was unfairly attacked by Bush machine when they ran in primaries together. Bush people insinuated he had a black child out of wedlock. They even claimed he was mentally unstable due to his time as a POW. McSame was deeply wounded by the attacks. But now he is willing to use same diversion techniques against Obama. That, my friends, speaks of the character of the man.
|
