Legal Blog: Can Wal-Mart please define sexual harassment?

Intelligence Official: Obama Would Endanger Us

Thursday, October 16, 2008
By: Ronald Kessler

If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will endanger the country by making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence tells Newsmax.

Obama “would so weaken our security forces that I personally believe that we would be in much greater danger of terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad,” says Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. “I’m very much concerned, because he’s shown weak judgment throughout his career. Throughout his campaign he has taken one position after another that just doesn’t make sense in fighting the war on terror.”

Obama voted twice in favor of requiring warrants to intercept communications of foreign terrorists situated overseas, including Osama bin Laden, Bond says.

“He voted for all of the amendments to weaken the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill and fought to strip it of its power,” Bond says. “Only at the 11th hour when he saw the tide was turning, did he vote for” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Obama’s comment that the way to fight the war on terror is with prosecutions, the way the first World Trade Center bombing was addressed, shows how out of touch Obama is, Bond says.

“That’s really great,” Bond says. “Prosecuting somebody who’s blown themselves to pieces. You’re lucky to find enough of them to identify them by DNA. They’re really going to fear prosecution.”

Because of President Bush’s policies, “We are much safer than before 9/11 and have avoided another terrorist attack,” Bond says. “That strategy has carried the war to the terrorists where they are. We’ve rolled back al-Qaida a long way. But Obama’s initial position a couple of years ago that the war is lost, let’s get out, would have turned the country over to al-Qaida.”

Obama’s recent claims that, if he knew where bin Laden was, he would strike him in Pakistan without permission of that country shows how little understanding he has of the war on terror, Bond says.

“That’s the policy now,” Bond says. “We do continually kill terrorists in Pakistan with the Predator, and we advise Pakistan. We don’t seek their permission. At one point, he said we’ll just go bomb Pakistan. Apparently he doesn’t realize that Pakistan, while certainly a mixed bag, is a nuclear-equipped Muslim territory which could, with any precipitous action, turn into an enemy. They control our most important supply routes into Afghanistan, and he would ignore that. He doesn’t realize how dangerous it would be to destabilize Pakistan and allow their radical fringes to take over.”

Obama showed the same lack of understanding about Russia’s invasion of Georgia, Bond says.

“He called on Georgia to show restraint, and it took him about three times to get around to John McCain’s general position condemning Russia,” Bond says. “Then his solution was to call on the U.N. Security Council. Do we want the commander in chief to pass the mantle of U.S. leadership to the U.N.? And do we want one who apparently does not know that Russia has a veto power in the Security Council?”

Obama’s statement that he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate without preconditions demonstrates naiveté, Bond says.

In sum, “He dismisses the threat, rewards enemies with summit meetings, abandons allies, and then refuses to support trade agreements with vital allies like Colombia, who are fighting off the narco-terrorists,” Bond says.

If you claimed to have ever had a honest or interesting point Larry, it is lost on me and the American people who also blame George W. Bush for not protecting the United States from the 9/11 attacks after he received more than 40 warnings that a terrorist attack was imminent.

Bushco in Iraq may not be sexual harassment, but beyond resource raping it is mass murder again with the ‘terrorist’ tag thrown onto civilians. Another favorite on the sociopath’s menu.

Randy Schueneman, the former Georgia lobbyist and John McCain foreign policy honcho was part of the combined hand that started that little fire over there in Georgia.

The Republican Party- Ill-motivated warfare for the suckers of cheap Walmart type patriotism. You are all expendable for money.

(Nice boots, Billy!) ^5!

Live Better In Cheap Underwear

boots?
More like Go-Go- boots or high heels and a mini skirt-

Screwed the village idiot in drag!

McCain Money News Roundup for Oct. 30, 2008
Even though only five days remain until Election Day, reports are still coming out about questionable donors to John McCain’s presidential campaign. In The Chicago Tribune, Andrew Zajac, Ray Gibson and Bob Secter write about Shi Sheng Hao, “a virtual unknown in business and political circles.” Since September 2007, he has given $120,000, even though, before then, he had no record of making donations. Hao’s relatives have also given more than $269,000, almost all of it to McCain and the Republican Party.~~~~~~~~~~~McCain’s Lobbyists.com

...Bushco in Iraq...suckers...

The only thing “original” about that post was “Billy’s” name (SVD is ghost-writing, again, it would seem...)

Note for Larry -

Larry, meet “SanDiegoView” (he was on some sort of hiatus after Alex Goldschmidt deleted some of his posts, a few months ago)—I call him “SVD” because he reminds me of a social disease…

SVD, I give you Larry—I look forward to his take on you!

What a surprise! Kurt Vonnegut is not one of bb and Larry’s favorite writers. Right wing anti-intellectualism lives!

Live Better In Cheap Underwear

The main difference between Republicans and Democrats:

A Republican wants to TEACH a man how to fish, so he can take care of himself!!

A Democrat wants to GIVE a man a fish (Share the wealth), so he will keep coming back again and again for more FREE fish and remain dependant on the government for his care!!

Also, there has to be something seriously wrong with a public school system that allows children to ‘graduate’, not knowing how to read and write!!

Another interesting fact:  People in China, make very ‘low wages’, but manage to ‘save’ about 40% for their future, but, Americans have alot ‘higher wages’ and have a MINUS savings rate, wonder why that is?

...wonder why that is?

Mmmm, because they don’t live in a casino capitalist country with it’s ‘consume now, pay later’ mentality. How much credit card debt does the average Chinese have?

“I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who’s hitting you? It’s about time that the people of America realized what the Republicans have been doing to them.” - Harry Truman (1948)

Ken V,

“Mmmm, because they don’t live in a casino capitalist country with it’s ‘consume now, pay later’ mentality.”

And, maybe that is why we have so many ‘poor’ people, who need to ‘Share in other people’s wealth’!!  You have put your finger on the PROBLEM, why do you want to increase it, by voting in a President who will worsen the problem?  Credit is like beer and just because beer is ‘available’, it is up to the USER to decide whether they will ‘drink’ or not!!  Sharing the wealth will only give people MORE to ‘spend’, to consume even MORE!!

Note for Larry in USN WWII (Ret),

WalMart is the largest private funding for Chinese communism.

I’m sure the pro-communist economic activity of WalMart is of no greater moral or patriotic interest to you then their hostility against America’s workforce.

Bon appetit anti-American WalMart sucker!!

...to consume even MORE!!

We’ve tried it your way, RDS, you, George Bush, John McCain, going all the way back to Ronald Reagan. Supply side economics is a failure.

Anyone remember David Stockman?

A White House “holding the American economy hostage to a reckless, unstable fiscal policy based on the politics of high spending and the doctrine of low taxes.” (1986)

Another interesting fact:  People in China, make very ‘low wages’, but manage to ‘save’ about 40% for their future, but, Americans have alot ‘higher wages’ and have a MINUS savings rate, wonder why that is? RDS~~~~~~~~~NOTE: Are we SURE that your statement IS in fact, based on fact?

ddrb,

“Are we SURE that your statement IS in fact, based on fact?”

Which part do you disagree with?  If you believe it NOT to be fact, prove me wrong!!

Just show your source,RDS. Is that a problem for you?

… prove me wrong!!

Tsk. Tsk. RDS, have you been listening to Rush Limbaugh again?

...by voting in a President who will worsen the problem?

Do you honestly think McCain has a clue about how to ‘fix’ this economy?

What’s good for Wal-Mart is BAD for America!

ddrb,

“Just show your source,RDS. Is that a problem for you?”

No, here is a link:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/HouseholdSavinginChina.pdf

Then there is this:

The Difference in Saving Rates between China and the U.S.
Robert Shiller explains the difference in saving rates between China and the U.S.:

Growth rate gulf result of opposite approach to saving, by Robert Shiller, Project Syndicate:

The saving rate in China is the highest of any major country. China’s gross saving rate ..., which includes both public and private saving, is around 50 percent.

By contrast, the saving rate in the United States is the lowest of any major country - roughly 10 percent of GDP. Differences in saving rates must be a major reason that China’s annual economic growth rate is a full six percentage points higher than in the US.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/08/differences_in_.html

Supply side economics is based on credit. Why wait? You can have it now!

The Walmart mentality propagates the idea that more crap will make us happy. ~ Phil Butler

Ken V,

Tell me What company you know of, that wants you to BUY LESS at their business?  What do you think advertising is all about?

“Supply side economics is based on credit. Why wait? You can have it now!”

Strange, but I thought that long before ‘supply side’ ecomonmics was introduced, Liberals were known as the “Tax and Spend’ party!!  Emphasis on the word SPEND!!

As far as the “Why wait? You can have it now” concept, that is a recent way (1960’s and later generations), of looking at things, our parents and grandparents (and, so do I), believed in ‘delayed gratification’, waiting until you saved enough to get it!!  But, the ‘new’ generations believe as the QUEEN song goes: “I want it ALL, I want it ALL and I want it NOW”!!  Another ‘new’ concept is, “If I can’t get it NOW, give me MORE money, so I can get it NOW” (the so-called ‘living wage’ concept)!!

Democrats — “Tax and Spend”

Republicans — “Borrow and Spend” Emphasis on the word SPEND!!

It all comes down to how (or if) you pay for it. Do you really think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be free? Roads, bridges, the police? All free?

You need to take a few deep breaths, RDS. You are sounding even more hysterical than usual.

“A lot of Koreans are asking, how can the United States be so weak?” ~ South Korean Finance Minister Kang Man-soo.

Ken V,

“Do you really think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be free? Roads, bridges, the police? All free?”

They MUST be, because you tend to blame all of these expenses on the Bush and the Republicans and wouldn’t have been there if there was a Democrat president!!  And, do you think the 9/11 clean-up, Repair of the Pentagon, and Katrina and Rita aftermath was free?  How about the fact, that the Democrats have controlled Congress for awhile now and they were in charge of the ‘spending’, when the recent 700 billion ‘bailout’ was appropriated, remembering that Congress controls ‘spending’, not the President!!  The President only submits a budget, Congress has to approve it, remember Reagan’s budgets being called “DOA” (Dead on Arrival) by the Democrat Congress, even before they saw it?

“Do you really think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be free? Roads, bridges, the police? All free?” ~~~~~~NOTE: I DISTINCTLY recall George W. Bush, a Republican, stating that the Iraqi OIL would pay for the costs associated with this war. As it stands,Iraq presently has $80 Billion in reserve, so WHY are e paying for this. Recently GE and Iraq firmed up contracts for Biliions and Billions of $$$ for GE to rebuild Iraqi electric grids. GE is owner of NBC, and a BIG player in the indusrtrial military complex. Are WE expected to pay for the GE contracts,too?