|
Post by big little brother on Feb 25, 2006 13:53:22 GMT -5
(and that's the answer-President Carter knew that in the '70s) Ah, James Earl Carter...the last American President to actually tell us the truth...
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2006 13:58:14 GMT -5
(and that's the answer-President Carter knew that in the '70s) Ah, James Earl Carter...the last American President to actually tell us the truth... Or protect us from evil...or for that matter, not be the evil we need protection from! Crazy ain't it? He's still a joke among "the sheep".
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 26, 2006 12:30:30 GMT -5
Here's another take on the Dubai World Ports thing ...
Let's assume that a company that has worked closely with the Dept of Homeland Security in its other overseas operations and is willing to make broad concessions about operations during the low-level agency investigation into its offer to buy those operations from that British firm were truly above board. Let's also assume that the Democratic Party is finally able to punch a hole in the President's untouchable holy position on national security and terrorism (ironically, perhaps -- justifiably also perhaps -- better using fear than the fear-mongerer himself), and that this is one of the key elements of the outcry (and the Republicans must respond, in kind, so as not to appear to be soft on the issue). Let's furthermore assume that the inherent conflict of interest between this Administration and business (and individual conflicts of interest between specific businesses and/or entire industries and specific individuals within the Administration) is going to be ignored and swept under the carpet (since the Dems adhere to the same basic principles and will be embarrassed -- not to mention punished -- in the future should their turn in the Oval Office materialize). And let's also assume -- as the Washington Post points out today -- that this Administration is tired, is lame-duck, and is distracted by too many other key issues to be fully commited to fully doing its job any longer (not that it did any of its job well -- it just was really good at loudly saying things), and this is why it allowed this relatively small issue mushroom into the atomic cloud it has become.
Are there any other conclusions or insights that we can draw from the cycle of events surrounding DPW and UAE that began roughly last Valentine's Day?
Well, I can think of one. This President has run roughshod over the Congress. In the first term, the Congress -- grudgingly in some circles -- went along with it. Many Republicans were gleeful participants, and more than happy to yassah in chorus with the President's program. Too many profited privately for having done so (and will -- hopefully -- be called to task for having done so). But the Congress was treated with total disdain by the President. Congressmen ... especially those with memories and/or experience ... don't like that. There has been a subtle and slowly gathering storm of resentment and resistance to the President and his regal, arrogant style of governance (please note that he refered to the decision to give the contract to DPW as a decision of "my" government -- a monarchical sentiment, at best) that has escalated to open defiance that includes as many Republicans as it does Democrats. It may be the wrong line to draw, the wrong issue to "investigate" (not that I hold my breath about the outcome of any "investigation"), and the wrong battle to fight.
But at least some folks are willing to fight. That's gotta be a step forward.
|
|
phils
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by phils on Feb 26, 2006 18:50:02 GMT -5
Dick Cheney quote : "Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you loose." Quote told to Ron Nessan, White House aide, in his book, "It Sure Looks Different From The Inside". .. ... ......as referenced in John W. Dean's book, "Worse Than Watergate". ( chapter two, "Stonewalling", page 45) , revised edition..Warner Books.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 27, 2006 0:32:28 GMT -5
With this UAE buying American ports deal, it appears to me that the Arabs are ultimately investing our money in our country. How ironic! Take a look at this: (this is not a hotel...it's a house in the UAE...no wonder Dubya kisses their ass!) This guy also has a silver Audi 8. Not just silver in color...it's made of sterling silver.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 7, 2006 0:33:12 GMT -5
Who knows? Maybe Texas can send up another President. I know that sounds pretty scary but....
Kinky says he's no friend of big business
Glenn Hunter - Editor Dallas Business Journal Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Independent candidate Kinky Friedman says if he's elected governor of Texas, big corporations won't have a friend in the governor's office.
"I don't care much about big corporations, frankly," Friedman told the Dallas Business Journal Tuesday. "Most politicians never met a special-interest group they didn't like.
"For instance, I'm not going to meet any lobbyists when I'm governor, following Jesse Ventura's lead" in Minnesota, Friedman said. "Because every time a bell rings, another lobbyist gets his wings. And I'm going to stop that."
To pay for the state's education system, Friedman advocated legalizing gambling, financing high school sports with corporate-sponsor money instead of public funds and starting something he calls the Trust for Texas Heroes.
Under that program, a 1 percent surcharge would be placed on big oil, gas and other companies that "don't pay any taxes anyway," Friedman said. The tax would raise "several billion dollars a year" for the salaries of teachers, police and firefighters, he said.
The heroes' fund was suggested by a Houston oilman who advised him...
|
|
|
Post by Tipi on Mar 7, 2006 11:12:53 GMT -5
Who knows? Maybe Texas can send up another President. I know that sounds pretty scary but.... Kinky says he's no friend of big business
Glenn Hunter - Editor Dallas Business Journal Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Independent candidate Kinky Friedman says if he's elected governor of Texas, big corporations won't have a friend in the governor's office.
"I don't care much about big corporations, frankly," Friedman told the Dallas Business Journal Tuesday. "Most politicians never met a special-interest group they didn't like.
"For instance, I'm not going to meet any lobbyists when I'm governor, following Jesse Ventura's lead" in Minnesota, Friedman said. "Because every time a bell rings, another lobbyist gets his wings. And I'm going to stop that."
To pay for the state's education system, Friedman advocated legalizing gambling, financing high school sports with corporate-sponsor money instead of public funds and starting something he calls the Trust for Texas Heroes.
Under that program, a 1 percent surcharge would be placed on big oil, gas and other companies that "don't pay any taxes anyway," Friedman said. The tax would raise "several billion dollars a year" for the salaries of teachers, police and firefighters, he said.
The heroes' fund was suggested by a Houston oilman who advised him... And after he gets elected ... we can start work on that Willitt Crick Dam project! Didn't know where to put this ... politics is politics .... MANALAPAN, Fla. (March 7) - The musician Yanni was arrested at his home after an alleged domestic dispute with his girlfriend, authorities said. Yanni, whose legal name is John Yanni Christopher, was arrested early Friday and faces a domestic battery charge, according to a police report. The Greek-born singer-pianist denied the allegations. Yanni asked his girlfriend, Silvia Barthes, to leave his beachfront home in Manalapan on Thursday night, the police report said. Barthes, 33, told police she attempted to pack her clothing but the 51-year-old musician threw it on the ground. She told officers he then grabbed her arms and shook her, throwing her on the bed, and jumped on top of her, according to the report. Yanni told police Barthes kicked him, and he believed he injured his finger during the incident, the report said. No one answered a call to a telephone listing for a John Christopher in Manalapan late Monday. But the musician said in a statement he was innocent. "These allegations are cruel, false, without merit and baseless," said the statement released by his manager, Danny O'Donovan. "At a more appropriate time and place, I hope and pray I will have an opportunity to address my fans and colleagues all over the world." I always thought he was a lil' butch ... T
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 7, 2006 17:51:32 GMT -5
I don't know where Newfane, VT. is but I take my hat off to em (well if I wore one I would take it off... Does a LF cap count?) Small town with big cajones! I'll have to start buying more maple syrup. Vermont Town Backs Bush Impeachment By DAVID GRAM Associated Press Writer
March 7, 2006, 3:34 PM EST
NEWFANE, Vt. -- In a white-clapboard town hall, circa 1832, voters gathered Tuesday to conduct their community's business and to call for the impeachment of President Bush.
"In the U.S. presently there are only a few places where citizens can act in this fashion and have a say in our nation," said select board member Dan DeWalt, who drafted the impeachment article that was placed on the warning -- or official agenda -- for the annual town meeting, a proud Yankee tradition in New England.
"It absolutely affects us locally," Dewalt said. "It's our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, who are dying" in the war in Iraq.
The article, approved 121-29 in balloting by paper, calls on Vermont's lone member of the House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against the president, alleging that Bush misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying.
The impeachment item came at the end of a roughly four-hour meeting that was devoted mostly to the local affairs of the town of 1,600. Among the other items discussed was whether the town should fix some of the 100-year-old sidewalks in the village.
The impeachment discussion took up almost half an hour, reflecting the intense interest in the topic and something of a division over whether the town meeting was the appropriate place to debate it.
Ann Landenberger argued that it was appropriate. "As a teacher I can't say to my kids that what happens on the national level doesn't affect us at the local level," she said. "Would that we could all be in a cocoon, but that is not the case."
Greg Record, a justice of the peace, said in an interview after the meeting that the town is made up of people from the "far-left," and he criticized the amount of time and attention such advisory votes get.
"We spend more time on these things than on a million-dollar budget item," he complained.
The president did have his supporters during the debate.
Lenore Salzbrun defended Bush, saying she had close friends who died in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "I am so grateful that our president didn't just put his head in the sand ... and did go out and fight," she said.
Sanders issued a statement saying that although the Bush administration "has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well not have been legal," given the reality that the Republicans control the House and the Senate, "it would be impractical to talk about impeachment."
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Mar 9, 2006 16:02:34 GMT -5
Well ... I am heartened by the growing groundswell of people openly willing to talk about impeachment. But, quite frankly, though an immediate step that must be taken to preserve any integrity for the Executive Branch, impeachment will not resolve the larger issues dividing our country. The ruling oligarchy has its fingers too deeply into the pie. Did you read what 283 members of the House (presumably of both parties) did yesterday in relation to food and health?
For those missing it, the House passed a bill (283-139) that will prevent states from adding warnings to food labels that exceed those approved by the FDA. In other words, if today the citizens of a given state (or even a group of states) can organize themselves and succeed in convincing a majority of the lawmakers in their state (or states) ... in itself, no small feat ... that food labels printed in their state should warn consumers about the presence of (for example) allergy-causing sulfites, they can do so even if no other state feels such a warning is warranted or necessary. In short ... a state can exercise its own right to regulate the health and safety of its own citizens, even if the federal government chooses not to. If this bill becomes law, the state can no longer do that, unless the federal government adopts a similar position.
Sort of undermines the meaning of "federalism", doesn't it?
Right now, some states (I live in one, and just moved from another that do this) feel very strongly about emissions from cars and factories. They have set much higher standards for clean air than other states. Automobile manufacturers do not like this law. Even if the intention of the law is the well-being of citizens, the auto manufacturers will have to make a totally different model for the California and Oregon market (heaven forbid they think of making the same clean model for all states ... or that they even have to be forced, by legislation, to think about air quality, especially if it intrudes on profit). They fear this. They also fear having to fend off, through lobbying expenses, efforts to do this in all fifty states. It is much easier to lobby one legislative body ... the Congress of the U.S. ... especially when that legislative body is already in the palm of your hand (as the 283-139 vote in the House on a similar bill illustrates)
I would also point out two brand new developments: Yesterday, a House committee voted 62-2 to send a Republican-sponsored bill to the floor that would make it illegal for Dubai Port World to take over operations of six east coast ports. This is a broad slap in Shrub's face. But, DPW took him off the hook today ... it has stated it will not pursue the purchase of those operations, making such legislation moot.
I wonder whose palm they are greasing (or whom they will be asking for some later lucrative payback ... not that the deal wasn't a major payback in the first place -- for John Snow and for David Sanborn, its previous CEO)?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 9, 2006 21:42:44 GMT -5
Did you read what 283 members of the House (presumably of both parties) did yesterday in relation to food and health? For those missing it, the House passed a bill (283-139) that will prevent states from adding warnings to food labels that exceed those approved by the FDA. In other words, if today the citizens of a given state (or even a group of states) can organize themselves and succeed in convincing a majority of the lawmakers in their state (or states) ... in itself, no small feat ... that food labels printed in their state should warn consumers about the presence of (for example) allergy-causing sulfites, they can do so even if no other state feels such a warning is warranted or necessary. In short ... a state can exercise its own right to regulate the health and safety of its own citizens, even if the federal government chooses not to. If this bill becomes law, the state can no longer do that, unless the federal government adopts a similar position. Something of interest (to me anyway). Ex (recently) Commissioner of the FDA is Mark McClellen appointed by Dubya himself. Mark's brother is...Scott McClellen; the official White House Apologist..I mean Spokesman. Me thinks this family just might be...well connected! Their mother, Carol Keeton-Strayhorn is running for governor of Texas against republican incumbent Rick Perry. Carol was a republican until she recently switched to the Independent Party opposing Kinky on that ticket. Remove Kinky, and that's a pretty nasty bunch of politicians! from the AP: New Leadership to Oversee Latest Medicare and Medicaid Expansion
President Bush has named US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Mark McClellen to serve as the new administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The announcement was made on February 20, 2004. McClellan will succeed Thomas Scully, who left the CMS position in December 2003.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Mar 10, 2006 13:19:20 GMT -5
This is not just a "well-connected" family. The relationship borders on incest.
But isn't this how the new feudalism is supposed to work?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Mar 10, 2006 13:39:44 GMT -5
Mike ... no sooner did I read your bit about Mark McClellan and his clan (and post my short response) than my electronic edition of the Contra Costa Times arrived in mailbox. Here is one of the front page stories:
FDA fought morning-after pill
By Tony Pugh KNIGHT RIDDER WASHINGTON - Internal documents made public Thursday have raised new questions about the federal government's continued refusal to allow over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraceptive known as "Plan B."
The documents, obtained by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, show that in February 2004, policymakers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found no problem in allowing the so-called morning-after pill to be sold without a prescription to women of all ages.
Yet 18 months later, former FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford cited concerns about selling the drug to younger teens as a major reason for blocking the move.
The move prompted outrage from women's rights groups and Democratic lawmakers, who claimed that the agency was blocking the measure for political reasons despite scientific evidence that showed nonprescription sales of the pill were safe.
One FDA official opposed to the decision resigned.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Bro said Thursday night that the agency was reviewing the matter and had no further comment.
Barr Laboratories, the maker of Plan B, originally sought to sell the drug over the counter to women of all ages. Only after meeting resistance from FDA officials and conservative organizations did the company opt to require prescriptions for girls 16 and under.
The FDA records indicate that the change was engineered by FDA senior officials who worked behind the scenes against the company while appearing to remain neutral.
After midlevel FDA officials recommended approving Plan B sales without prescriptions, their superiors told them that FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan and other senior managers at the agency "cannot support the nonprescription switch of Plan B," according to the agency's records.
By that time, the FDA already had begun urging Barr to seek over-the-counter sales for those 17 and older.
Barr eventually did so, but the request was tabled in August by Crawford, who claimed the move raised "difficult and novel policy and regulatory issues." The FDA hasn't yet decided the matter, and Plan B remains available by prescription only.
In a letter to acting FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach released Thursday, Waxman contends that the FDA "created a regulatory 'Catch 22' to justify the predetermined political decision to block over-the-counter sales of Plan B."
"In essence, the agency was well-aware of the regulatory questions that would arise when it suggested age restrictions but simply did not resolve them in a timely manner," Waxman wrote. Waxman's office wouldn't disclose the source of the documents.
An April 2004 e-mail message from Jane Axelrad, associate director for policy at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said that allowing over-the-counter and prescription sales of Plan B in the same package would be "consistent with precedent" and comply with "applicable statutory and regulatory provisions."
But that same month, an unidentified FDA deputy division director wrote that McClellan and senior management in Axelrad's department "do not concur" and "cannot support" such a move. They, in turn, asked the FDA's Office of Chief Counsel for a final assessment on whether the drug could be sold both with and without prescription for different age groups.
But that assessment was never made public. Daniel Troy, who was the head of the FDA's counsel office at that time and is now a law partner with Sidley Austin LLP, had no immediate comment.
Waxman wants von Eschenbach to disclose by March 27 whether the FDA's legal analysis of Plan B was ever completed.
Carol Cox, Barr's vice president of communications, wouldn't comment on the new disclosures but said, "We continue to seek approval from the FDA of Plan B as an (over-the-counter) product."
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 11, 2006 12:21:50 GMT -5
Yep...where would Dubya and the Righteous Right be without their well placed friends?
Here's a good one: A couple of years ago a coed from the University of North Texas in Denton was brutally raped and traumatized. After her treatment at the hospital the Dr. demanded that she take the morning after pill, and wrote her a prescription for it. Now...the pharmacist at the local Eckards...THAT'S ECKARDS PHARMACY...refused to fill her prescription because it was against his moral judgment. There was some local protest from about 500 coeds in front of the ECKARDS PHARMACY for a while but as usual, the outrage eventually died down to...gone. The pharmacist (and I use that term loosely) is still there prescribing his judgment to anyone at "his" counter.
Don't these guys have to take an oath or something that states "they're not actually God, even if they think they are"?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 14, 2006 22:43:29 GMT -5
It's OK with Tom if the prosecuter does his job as long as he does it "Tom's Way".
Posted on Tue, Mar. 14, 2006 Appeals court grants DeLay's request to stop subpoenas
WASHINGTON -- A Texas appeals court Monday granted Rep. Tom DeLay's request to stop a prosecutor from filing subpoenas in the former majority leader's pending money-laundering case. A Third Court of Appeals panel in Austin also said several subpoenas issued by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle are null and void because DeLay's trial is on hold. In addition, any outstanding subpoenas issued before the trial was put on hold are suspended during the stay, the court said. DeLay is awaiting trial on money-laundering charges related to accusations that he funneled corporate money, largely banned in Texas campaigns, through the Republican National Committee and a Texas political action committee into the campaign coffers of several 2002 GOP legislative candidates. DeLay denies any wrongdoing. No trial date has been set. Court proceedings have been on hold since Dec. 19, at Earle's request. Earle asked for the stay while he appealed the dismissal of a conspiracy charge against DeLay. The stay stifled an effort by DeLay to go to trial immediately on the money-laundering charges. "Ronnie Earle was abusing his power and getting subpoenas issued by a court that had no jurisdiction," said Matt Hennessy, one of DeLay's Houston lawyers. Hennessy said DeLay asked the court to step in after Earle issued a subpoena for his wife, Christine. Bryan Case, director of the appellate division of the Travis County district attorney's office, said Earle's office respects and will abide by the court's decision. "We have issued these subpoenas in order to be ready for trial in a timely manner," Case said. Since the stay, Earle has also issued subpoenas for documents from the former law firm employers of lobbyist Jack Abramoff; records from two Indian tribes that contributed to DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority PAC; and documents from the National Republican Congressional Committee about a $25,000 contribution it made to a DeLay-linked advocacy group. He also subpoenaed records from co-defendants of former California Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Mar 15, 2006 12:05:21 GMT -5
I'm growing about as fond of the Democratic Party as Bill L! What a bunch of "P*ssies"! Like I said before...I'm a confirmed Yellow Dog Independent. They left him hanging..."oh, we must not upset the emporer.." Feingold Accuses Democrats of 'Cowering' Mar 15 7:20 AM US/Eastern By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Sen. Russell Feingold accused fellow Democrats on Tuesday of cowering rather than joining him on trying to censure President Bush over domestic spying.
"Democrats run and hide" when the administration invokes the war on terrorism, Feingold told reporters.
Feingold introduced censure legislation Monday in the Senate but not a single Democrat has embraced it. Several have said they want to see the results of a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation before supporting any punitive legislation.
Republicans dismissed the proposal Tuesday as being more about Feingold's 2008 presidential aspirations than Bush's actions. On and off the Senate floor, they have dared Democrats to vote for the resolution.
"I'm amazed at Democrats ... cowering with this president's numbers so low," Feingold said.
The latest AP-Ipsos poll on Bush, conducted last week, found just 37 percent of the 1,000 people surveyed approving his overall performance, the lowest of his presidency.
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., tried to hold a vote Monday on Feingold's resolution but was blocked by Democrats. He said Tuesday that Feingold should withdraw the resolution because it has no support.
"If the Democrats continue to say no to voting on their own censure resolution, then they ought to drop it and focus on our foreign policy in a positive way," Frist said in a statement.
Feingold's resolution condemns Bush's "unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required" by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The only president ever censured by the Senate was Andrew Jackson, in for removing the nation's money from a private bank in defiance of the Whig-controlled Senate.
|
|