Them's strong words Mr Dean!
Posted By: Mrs. Bridger on 2009-03-13
In Reply to:
John Dean on MSNBC: Dik Cheney may be guilty of "murder"
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dik Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.
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
Howard Dean is also an MD
so he's just a stupid "crat?" Who's stupid?
James Dean? No way!
Did not know that
article from john dean
Was Pat Robertson's Call for Assassination of a Foreign Leader a Crime?
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com
Friday 26 August 2005
Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.
On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.
More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.
We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.
By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.
No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.
From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?
For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.
The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders
Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.
Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?
It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.
And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:
Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.
Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.
The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure
It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)
The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.
But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?
First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.
Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.
As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.
Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does
If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?
Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.
Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.
This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.
In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.
In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.
Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.
For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?
If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.
Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Here is a synopsis of the Dean interview.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm
You still got the wrong Mr. Dean, Darwin
Identifying the CORRECT Mr. Dean since you don't know any better........no child left behind?
I mean Dean is a real republican, not like the ones today.
Ummm...wrong Mr. Dean, Einstein
Howard Dean was the Vermont Governor who ran in the 2004 election. JOHN Dean was Richard Nixon's Aide - get it?
John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) was White House Counsel to U.S. President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. As White House Counsel, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover up, even referred to as "master manipulator of the cover up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
Jon Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
HNN History News Network Because the Past is the Present, and the Future too.
12-20-04 An Interview with Jon Butler ... Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?
By Rick Shenkman
Mr. Butler, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Yale University, is the author of Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People(Harvard University Press, 1990). This interview was conducted by HNN editor Rick Shenkman for The Learning Channel series, Myth America, which aired several years ago.
You hear it all the time from the right wing. The United States was founded as a Christian country. What do you make of that?
Well, first of all, it wasn't. The United States wasn't founded as a Christian country. Religion played very little role in the American Revolution and it played very little role in the making of the Constitution. That's largely because the Founding Fathers were on the whole deists who had a very abstract conception of God, whose view of God was not a God who acted in the world today and manipulated events in a way that actually changed the course of human history. Their view of religion was really a view that stressed ethics and morals rather than a direct divine intervention.
And when you use the term deists, define that. What does that mean?
A deist means someone who believes in the existence of God or a God, the God who sets the world into being, lays down moral and ethical principals and then charges men and women with living lives according to those principals but does not intervene in the world on a daily basis.
Let's go through some of them. George Washington?
George Washington was a man for whom if you were to look at his writings, you would be very hard pressed to find any deep, personal involvement with religion. Washington thought religion was important for the culture and he thought religion was important for soldiers largely because he hoped it would instill good discipline, though he was often bitterly disappointed by the discipline that it did or didn't instill.
And he thought that society needed religion. But he was not a pious man himself. That is, he wasn't someone who was given to daily Bible reading. He wasn't someone who was evangelical. He simply was a believer. It's fair, perfectly fair, to describe Washington as a believer but not as someone whose daily behavior, whose political life, whose principals are so deeply infected by religion that you would have felt it if you were talking to him.
Thomas Jefferson?
Well, Jefferson's interesting because recently evangelicals, some evangelicals, have tried to make Jefferson out as an evangelical. Jefferson actually was deeply interested in the question of religion and morals and it's why Jefferson, particularly in his later years, developed a notebook of Jesus' sayings that he found morally and ethically interesting. It's now long since been published and is sometimes called, The Jefferson Bible. But Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn't a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination--unlike Washington who actually did. He was an Episcopalian. Jefferson, however, was interested in morals and ethics and thought that morals and ethics were important but that's different than saying religion is important because morals and ethics can come from many sources other than religion and Jefferson knew that and understood that.
Where does he stand on Christ exactly?
Jefferson rejected the divinity of Christ, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher and it was in Christ's moral and ethical teachings that Jefferson was particularly interested. And so that's what attracted him to the figure of Christ was the moral and ethical teachings as described in the New Testament. But he was not an evangelical and he was not a deeply pious individual.
Let's move on to Benjamin Franklin.
Benjamin Franklin was even less religious than Washington and Jefferson. Franklin was an egotist. Franklin was someone who believed far more in himself than he could possibly have believed have believed in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He believed in such things as the transmigration of souls. That is that human, that humans came into being in another existence and he may have had occult beliefs. He was a Mason who was deeply interested in Masonic secrets and there are some signs that Franklin believed in the mysteries of Occultism though he never really wrote much about it and never really said much about it. Franklin is another writer whom you can read all you want to read in the many published volumes of Franklin's writings and read very little about religion.
Where did the conservatives come up with this idea that the Founding Fathers were so religious?
Well, when they discuss the Founding Fathers or when individuals who are interested in stressing the role of religion in the period of the American Revolution discuss this subject, they often stress several characteristics. One is that it is absolutely true that many of the second level and third levels in the American Revolution were themselves church members and some of them were deeply involved in religion themselves.
It's also true that most Protestant clergymen at the time of the American Revolution, especially toward the end of the Revolution, very eagerly backed the Revolution. So there's a great deal of formal religious support for the American Revolution and that makes it appear as though this is a Christian nation or that religion had something to do with the coming of the Revolution, the texture of the Revolution, the making of the Revolution.
But I think that many historians will argue and I think quite correctly that the Revolution was a political event. It was centered in an understanding of what politics is and by that we mean secular politics, holding power. Who has authority? Why should they have authority? It wasn't centered in religious events. It wasn't centered in miracles. It wasn't centered in church disputes. There was some difficulty with the Anglican church but it was relatively minor and as an example all one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence. Neither in Jefferson's beautifully written opening statement in the Declaration nor in the long list of grievances against George the Third does religion figure in any important way anywhere.And the Declaration of Independence accurately summarizes the motivations of those who were back the American Revolution.
Some of the conservatives will say, well, but it does make a reference to nature's God and isn't that a bow to religion?
It is a bow to religion but it's hardly a bow to evangelicalism. Nature's God was the deist's God. Nature's God, When evangelicals discuss religion they mean to speak of the God of the Old and the New Testament not the God of nature. The God of nature is an almost secular God and in a certain way that actually makes the point that that's a deistical understanding of religion not a specifically Christian understanding of religion. To talk about nature's God is not to talk about the God of Christ.
John Patrick Diggins has advanced the argument that not only were the Founding Fathers not particularly religious but in fact they were deeply suspicious of religion because of the role that they saw religion played in old Europe, where they saw it not as cohesive but as divisive. Do you agree?
The answer is yes and the reason is very simple. The principal Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin--were in fact deeply suspicious of a European pattern of governmental involvement in religion. They were deeply concerned about an involvement in religion because they saw government as corrupting religion. Ministers who were paid by the state and paid by the government didn't pay any attention to their parishes. They didn't care about their parishioners. They could have, they sold their parishes. They sold their jobs and brought in a hireling to do it and they wandered off to live somewhere else and they didn't need to pay attention to their parishioners because the parishioners weren't paying them. The state was paying them.
In addition, it corrupts the state. That is, it brings into government elements of politics and elements of religion that are less than desirable. The most important being coercion. When government is involved with religion in a positive way, the history that these men saw was a history of coercion and a history of coercion meant a history of physical coercion and it meant ultimately warfare. Most of the wars from 1300 to 1800 had been religious wars and the wars that these men knew about in particular were the wars of religion that were fought over the Reformation in which Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other, stuffed Bibles into the slit stomachs of dead soldiers so that they would eat, literally eat, their words, eat the words of an alien Bible and die with those words in their stomachs. This was the world of government involvement with religion that these men knew and a world they wanted to reject.
To create the United States meant to create a new nation free from those old attachments and that's what they created in 1776 and that's what they perfected in 1789 with the coming of the federal government. And thus it's not an accident that the First Amendment deals with religion. It doesn't just deal with Christianity. It deals with religion with a small r meaning all things religious.
What about the conservatives' belief that we need to go back to the religion of the Founding Fathers?
If we went back to the religion of the Founding Fathers we would go back to deism. If we picked up modern religion, it's not the religion of the Founding Fathers. Indeed, we are probably more religious than the society that created the American Revolution. There are a number of ways to think about that. Sixty percent of Americans belong to churches today , 20 percent belonged in 1776. And if we count slaves, for example, it probably reduces the figure to 10 percent of the society that belonged to any kind of religious organization.
Modern Americans probably know more about religious doctrine in general, Christianity, Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism, than most Americans did in 1776. I would argue that America in the 1990s is a far more deeply religious society, whose politics is more driven by religion, than it was in 1776. So those who want to go back would be going back to a much more profoundly secular society.
What do you make of the politicians who take the opposite point of view. It must make you go crazy.
It doesn't make me go crazy. It makes me feel sad because it's inaccurate. It's not a historically accurate view of American society. It's a very useful view because many modern men and women are driven by a jeremiad, that is jeremiad lamenting the conditions in the wilderness. We tend to feel bad when we hear that we are not as religious as our fathers or our grandfathers or our great grandfathers and that spurs many of us on to greater religious activity. Unfortunately in this case the jeremiad simply isn't true. And I don't think that those who insist it is true would really want to go back to the kind of society that existed on thee eve of the American Revolution.
Americans do become religious in the nineteenth century, don't they? That's what you say in your book.
The American Revolution created the basis for new uses of religion in a new society and that was conveyed in the lesson taught by the First Amendment. If government was no longer going to be supporting religion how was religion going to support itself? It would have to support itself by its own means. Through its own measures. It would have to generate its measures. And this is what every one of the churches began to do. As soon as religion dropped out of the state and the state dropped out of religion, the churches began fending for themselves. And they discovered that in fending for themselves that their contributions were going up, they were producing more newspapers, more tracts, they were beginning to circulate those tracts, they created a national religious economy long before there was a secular economy. You could trade more actively in religious goods than you could in other kinds in the United States in 1805, 1810.
What happened in the United States is that the churches actually benefited from this separation of church and state that was dictated by the First Amendment. In addition to which America became kind of a spiritual hothouse in the nineteenth century. Not only did the quantity off religion go up but so did the proliferation of doctrine. There became new religions--the Mormons, the spiritualists--all created in the United States. New religious groups that no one had ever heard of before, that had never existed anywhere else in western society than in the United States.
Those types of words are unnecessary and actually ARE racist words. sm
Those types of phrases are offensive and are intended to be offensive. This election should not be about race. If it is about race for you, then you are probably one of the ignorant people using those words. Very rude!!
I seriously doubt the Dems would claim you,Zauber. You're another Howard Dean.
Still going strong.
Wow, I think we should put you in charge of the AARP euthanasia project. He has few years let? Did you happen to see his MOTHER at the RNC?
And it's kind of silly that you equate your not being able to lose weight with someone else's inability to be vital at 72. (Here's a tip - more calories out/fewer calories in - guaranteed to work every single time. If it's something you still want, don't give up. But, please, stop superimposing your defeatist attitude on the man, will ya?)
I'll flip the coin for you.
Obama is still wet behind the ears. He has less actual executive experience than the guy ringing up change at your local Pizza Hut. Why doesn't he wait until he's lived a little, learend a LOT, and can contribute something to the Oval Office?
My sympathies on the imminent loss of your grandfather, since obviously 72 is death's doorstep. Shame on you.
Strong, possibly. But was I saw most was
Yeah, believe it or not, there are actually strong and
nm
The union was also very strong until
the economy started really going under after 9/11. At GM, if you were "laid off" you still received 95% of your pay. They would get the regular unemployment benefits and GM would supplement the rest. This was in their contract, which to me is GMs fault, not the employee.
If it was a permanent layoff, then you went to the job banks, where you would sit for 40 hours a week, receive full pay and schooling if you wanted it. They only allowed so many people in the job banks, but it was numbering in the thousands at one point. These people also had the option of volunteering in the community instead of just sitting there. I know 3 that went on to get their degrees in other lines of work and about 10 that waited there until retirement.
This was set up in the 70s when the first massive layoff hit. This guaranteed that GM would hire back the employees that were laid off instead of hiring people off the streets. Another union thing.
I think Amanda is right from below. They made a lot of money over time and now that things are bad again, they didn't plan ahead and budget their money. No one is going to bail me out, pay my mortgage, feed my family, electric bill, etc. I know that having them go down is going to hurt many people and that is not what I want, but the bailouts that have already happened have not shown the execs to be responsible in any way. My father will be one of those losing their health benefits as well and he has medical conditions too as well as my mom. My husband works for one of their suppliers so we are affected as well. My husband busts his rear day in and day out for $17 an hour with no benefits. Overtime is not allowed. I guess I just want them to show responsibility.
Palin is strong, secure.
nm
You don't think there are strong, intelligent women...
who express their opinions in favor of Palin?
The conservative posters on this board are no more sensitive about Palin than the other side is about Obama.
It is not personal for me either. I'm sure Obama is a nice person...and I am personally sure he is not the right man for the #1 job. He has a socialist agenda and socialist policies and I think that would be disastrous for America. That in a nutshell is my problem with him.
She's threatened by a strong woman, that's why.
How typical of women. To call each other 'stupid' and get catty and snipy at the thought of a woman getting farther ahead than the rest of the pack.
Palin is doing a fine job of governor. Do you think YOU could handle that? I doubt it. You sound more like the sit-in-her-kitchen-and-paint-vegetables type of gal. Yeah, I'm sure that takes a MENSA brain.
Pathetic.
Little.
Loser.
If this country is to remain strong, we need to
NM
Right..and without strong National Security, the
nm
Went to a tea party yesterday of 11,000 strong.
What an event! Gives me hope that there are still plenty of us in this country who are not afraid to stand up and be counted.
Wow! I just love being called a "rich" person funded by Fox News as the only participants as CNN would have you believe who would show up. My tea party was strictly grass roots, funded by $5.00 contributions, not an event hosted by George Soros at $1500 or more a head.
I'm an MT. I sure as heck ain't rich. I work for a living, and I don't want to pay for your mortgage, your education, your health care, or helping your fanny reduce your carbon imprint. I want my grandchildren to have all the opportunities I have had in living in this country with the rights to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
I'm going to D.C. on July 4th. I love my country. I'm standing up. How about you?
It's time to take our country back and give the boot to Onuto.
You're right....words are just words...so are Obama's...
...and don't/won't mean anything to many people, myself included.
He is no MLK.
It is a historic moment, of that I have no doubt. And yes, he has come far.
However, one still needs to have strength of character to back the words up for true meaning, and he is sadly lacking in that area.
Playing dumb is not your strong suit. nm
nmnmnm
Better post below. "Economics not strong suit." (JM)
su
I am proud of strong, intelligent women... sm
Expressing their opinion and speaking out. Just because they're not infatuated with SP and disagree with her idealogy doesn't mean what they're saying is hateful. I've seen much more hateful things here on this board than on that blog.
You (and a lot of people) seem to be taking any negative comments about SP very personally. Is there no critism of her you'll stand? Come on. McCain wants her to be the VP and no one who thinks otherwise can say anything about her w/o it being "hateful" ? How ridiculous.
I don't agree with her views on the issues. It's not personal. I'm sure she's a lovely person, I'm just not convinced she's the best person for the job. In a nutshell, that is my problem with McCain's choice of her for his VP.
Economy is strong according to McCain today....sm
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/15/mccain-defends-economy-comments/#comments
Please people think twice about voting for this OUT OF TOUCH man!!!
Could he have picked a worse day to say this. Major companies going bankrupt, record unemployment rates, retirement nest egg going down the drain, gas at $5.00 a gallon, energy costs rising, groceries through the roof....on and on....
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH...This man doesn't know a bad economy if it slapped him in the face.
What, a strong, conservative woman scares you?
nm
I'd venture to guess a strong majority, just like the ones
You seem to be a bit hostile toward popular mandate, majority rule and other such precepts on which our countr wsa founded.
It's pretty obvious her strong points are not selling herself.
and this country.
Me, sexist? That's laughable, being a very strong independent woman myself, but
I am afraid of a woman who has some sort of God complex and has nothing to lose. We should all be very afraid by somebody like that!
6.5% is a pretty strong margin for "such a poor choice"
and any pretense on your part to know why someone did or did not vote for him is pure speculation. As for me, not only was he the best choice by a long-shot, but he hold the promise of being a great leader...in Colin Powell's words, a "tranformational figure" at a time when the country needed it the most.
Nothing but words hon, and we know how Obama's words
nm
Just a few words
For you to even think something like that shows you have it in your brain. I would never post some of the derogatory posts you and your friends from the conservative board have posted to me and to others. Does it bother you that much that I post strong opinions and refuse to be cowed by nasty responses? I have thick skin and I can roll with the punches. Seems to me every time I post you and your friends just have to respond, no matter what I post. By you responding so forcefully shows you are threatened by my ideology and the bigger picture, the liberal/democratic ideology. Be happy with your beliefs and espouse them but stop attacking people for their beliefs..In other words, chill out..you will do your heart a favor. This is a free country, my opinions are mine and I will continue to have them. Nothing you say will change my beliefs..so dont waste your time trying..I also must say, if you want to talk about people sounding like lunatics, re-read some of the conservative posts. A few profess to never attack or call names, yeah right, there is so much back biting and name calling on that board..but hey, its fair game when you are dealing with politics. they are all just words, nothing more. My bigger quest is to help turn this country around to the country I knew and loved through grass roots politics, belonging to the local democratic party and making sure the right ones get in mid year elections and in three years. This is just a politics board, LOL, nothing that gets my blood pressure elevated, that is for sure..The majority of Americans feel we are headed down the wrong track and our priorities are wrong. The latest poll shows the people losing faith and trust in Bush and his credibility is going down. The majority think Iraq was a mistake and worry that attacking Iraq made us less secure and more prone to attacks. Seems to me my opinions and those of most that post on the liberal board (save for the few conservatives who post here to attack and disrupt) are in the mainstream of American thought, fears and concerns. Now, I would hope the attacks will stop, as I will not respond to them anymore. If you want to debate, post the debate and Im sure many will join in but no one wants to be part of a board where crazy accusations such as you and yours have been posting about me keep getting posted.
Yes, among other words. NM
These were your words.
Still on this board!!! Tell me how what you said below is the same as:
As far as Iraq, of course, you twisted that all out of context. Lurker asked if I would go to Iraq to help rebuild and I said yes, if I could I would, but please don't tell the truth and continue to twist because you are twisted.
Yes, I will join. I was there once, I will go again. No problem at all. NM
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Liberals]
Posted By: MT on 2005-08-24,
In Reply to: Ridiculous...I think not - Lurker
There are no words, only
thoughts and prayers. I am so very sorry.
HER words (yet again):
Yes, I will join. I was there once, I will go again. No problem at all.
Not *would* join.... WILL JOIN. WILL GO AGAIN. WILL, WILL, WILL, WILL, WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Those who believe in telling the truth can easily see the distortion.
The key words are
*announced* and *Bin Laden.*
Clinton announced to AMERICANS that he was specifically targeting Bin Laden. Remember him? HE was the guy responsible for 9/11, and HE is the guy that Bush ignored to instead invade Iraq.
Clinton wasn't targeting average Americans who are trying to pay off their J. C. Penney bills, and Clinton never used intimidating tactics towards American citizens.
Bush doesn't know how to do anything BUT use secrets, intimidation and fear tactics.
Words
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I would choose to have an abortion, or choose to end life (which to me, are still 2 different things). I said that I believe in choice.
I have two words for you. SM
Walid Shoebat. I am willing to bet he knows way more than your professor about the Middle East and he doesn't agree with either one of you.
Wow! In her own words no less. I do not want any
.
Two words
There is a word spelled choose and a word spelled chose. They certainly are confused a lot these days.
Choose is present tense and chose is past tense. They are pronounced differently.
I'm not picking on the poster; just making a general observation about a term many people misuse.
what a way with words . . .
guffaw.
WOW, you use BIG words, just like O!
I am so happy for you!
In their own words
Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
I'd love to know why I should have to bail out anyone. If my husband and I overextended ourselves and spent like drunken sailors we'd have nobody to blame but ourselves. So in that same concept we should turn to someone and essentially hand the bill for it over to him/her?
Also, as a Texan, we'll now be on the hook for billions (per the radio) from Ike. My husband and I don't HAVE a billion here, a billion there. They throw around million, billion, and trillion like it's petty cash!
In your own words. sm
The middle class disappears...money at the very top, and that's it. The middle class and the lower class become the same. Can you not see that is what has happened already in America?
your words
"and this notion that the democrats ruined everything since they took over - excuse me, we are not supposed to have 1 party in total power, remember that one? when you get all sides represented and respected, you have more freedom." Those are your words. What do you think we will have if Obama wins?? A democrat for president and a democratic congress. That would be one party in power, and that is not a pretty picture at all.
In other words........... sm
everything except his experience.
He was not addressing all the issues you listed in the video. Did you even WATCH it?
Yes, he might have known the words, but
But, you are supposed to repeat the oath given to you,word for word, and this would have been the "wrong" oath, so the justice had to correct himself, so the right oath was administered.
Do the words......(sm)
great depression and new deal ring a bell? I guess Econ 101 was too much for ya, so let's go back to high school American history. 
In other words....(sm)
there are no facts to support your claim. You guys just spout out anything...LOL.
|
