Disqus - Latest Comments for Joel_101

Re: Sarah Palin is Not a Feminist

blogging for money — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:29:54 -0000

Agree with you Joel. I love how people are trying to label who is a feminist or not. Who even gives a crap anyways.

Re: Do You Agree with the Bush Doctrine? Well, Do You?

Pete — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:30:49 -0000

No offense but his is exactly what needs to stop.. The arguing. I do wish that points can be made that are only factual and not opinionated. We the US lives off opinions and I'd say more than 95% of the population bases their decisions off of their friends views or family views. It's part of the American way to have opinions but we are not very good at listening first before making those opinions.
I'd like to see the UNITED States become united in the right way, through hard work and support to one another.

One way to look at history books is they are JUST books. They are blogs basically/ opinions written down on paper not on computers, so that makes them no different than Wiki too. There is some factual info there, but we need a place for real answers. Especially now.

Re: Basic, Quality Care for Women is at Stake

Joel_101 — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:08:46 -0000

I'll have to research - but if true - I will scream

Doctors are doctors - they are not supposed to have a choice once they take their oath - hmmm, have to check and see it there still is an oath... That would be bad too

Re: Have We Covered the “Angry Woman” Stance Enough Yet?

Joel_101 — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:00:13 -0000

Not really, McCain's temper was covered several times by O'Reilly during the primaries. It's kind of a dead issue as everyone knows he has one :)

O'Reilly even called McCain a liar on his spanish ad today.

As fo sexism - O'Reilly has plenty of strong, smart women from both sides of the political fence on his show - almost daily.

He is deffinately a "contact sport" journalist - but I do not see any sexism - As for this particular incident - he had been told by call ins to his radio show that she was angry - he was just trying to see what others thought. Hillary's campain even stated that his interview of her was the most fair of all her interviews.

Fox is no way perfect, but I do see more balance as compared to, let's say - Anderson Cooper.

Regardless - I probably have a different view of media anyway - you know - seek the truth and don't take anything at face value.

Re: Have We Covered the “Angry Woman” Stance Enough Yet?

menstrualpoetry — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:11:08 -0000

No, I don't think you're blind, but I do think you are looking at it from a skewed perspective, as is the rest of the country when it comes to Sarah Palin.

I did not run Palin under the bus, I talked about what she has accomplished; now whether or not what she has accomplished thus far is good or not, well that is up for debate (obviously.)

Now Palin is not mentioned anywhere in this post, so moving on...

It has been an ongoing tradition of Fox News to report smears and sexism and this is yet another little quip from O'Reilly. Michelle Obama is not "angry," nor should that be up for debate, especially since Fox News isn't reporting continuously about McCain's anger, yet Michelle's has been up for debate several times. Get it?

Re: Have We Covered the “Angry Woman” Stance Enough Yet?

Joel_101 — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0000

Am I blind?

Where is the sexism and racism?

Sarah Palin is strong, educated and accomplished, yet you ran her under the bus. I would bet that if Palin were a liberal Dem and Obama was a right wing rep - you would run her under the bus too.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as I am also - but where oh where is there any objectivity here?

Re: Obama’s Record on Protection Against Sexual Assault

Joel_101 — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:15:48 -0000

First I want to say that I support education and legislation that protects anyone against abuse or violence.

Second, I do not agree with any parties ads that have even the slightest bit of deception included in them.

This particular ad:

The bill never went anywhere – how can it be an accomplishment?
I read the bill.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?...
It was intended to amend already existing laws.

“Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the School Code and the Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act. Changes and adds criteria that sex education classes and comprehensive health education programs must satisfy. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Effective immediately.”

One passage that I assume the ad is based upon:

7 (a) If any school district provides courses of
8 instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive
9 understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological,
10 hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life,
11 then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching
12 of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related
13 to unintended pregnancy, as the alternatives to abortion,
14 appropriate to the various grade levels; and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall
20 be required to take or participate in any family life class
21 or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian
22 submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or
23 participate in such course or program shall not be reason for
24 suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

I also read what age appropriate sex education is to some:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/...
http://www.siecus.org/
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/Right...
http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guide...

One will have to make up their own minds on what is considered “age appropriate”.
-------------
Senators can not pass laws.
-------------
How a Bill Becomes a Law – similar for state legislature
Introduction:
Member of Congress introduces legislation. The official process begins when a bill is numbered, ("H.R." signifies a bill originating in the U.S. House of Representatives and "S." signifies a bill originating in the U.S. Senate) referred to a committee and printed.

Step 1. Referral to Committee:
A bill is referred to standing committee in House or Senate. The referral is determined by which committee, or committees, has jurisdiction over the issues addressed in the bill.

Step 2. Committee Action:
When a bill reaches a committee, it is placed on the committee’s calendar. If the committee chairperson decides not to hear a bill, or act upon it in some other way, it is the equivalent of killing it.

Step 3: Subcommittee Review:
Often, bills are referred to a subcommittee. Hearings held at the subcommittee or committee level allow the views of the executive branch, other public officials, experts, supporters and opponents to be put on the record.

Step 4. Mark Up:
After hearings are held, the subcommittee may "mark up" the bill (make changes or add amendments) prior to recommending it to the full committee. If a subcommittee votes not to report the bill to the full committee, the bill dies.

Step 5. Committee Action:
After receiving the subcommittee’s report on the bill, the full committee can conduct further hearings, or it can vote and "order the bill reported" to the respective chamber where the bill originated: House or Senate.

Step 6. Written Report:
After the bill is reported, committee staff prepares a report on the bill describing the intent and scope of the legislation.

Step 7. Scheduling Floor Action:
The bill is placed in chronological order on a calendar. The House keeps several legislative calendars, and the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader largely determine if, when and in what order bills come before the House. In the Senate, there is only one legislative calendar.

Step 8. Debate:
When a bill reaches the floor of the House or Senate, the chamber must vote on the rules determining the amount of time allocated for debate on the bill.

Step 9. Voting:
After debate and approval of any amendments, the chamber votes. Votes may be recorded electronically or by voice vote. A recorded or "roll call" vote contains the names of members who vote for or against the bill, or who did not vote at all. A voice vote is a simple "aye" or "no" and the presiding officer in the chamber determines the result. If a bill is non-controversial, or has been reviewed sufficiently by each member of Congress before even reaching the floor, it can be voted on without scheduling any debate. This is called "unanimous consent" or "suspension of the rules."

Step 10. Referral:
When the House or Senate passes a bill, it is referred to the other chamber which may approve the bill, reject it, ignore it or change it through the same committee or subcommittee action as described above.

Step 11. Conference Committee:
If the opposite chamber only makes minor changes, the legislation goes back to the originating chamber for approval of the changes. However, if the bill has been significantly altered, a conference committee with members from both chambers is formed to reconcile the differences. If the conferees can reach an agreement, a conference report is prepared, if not, the bill dies.

Step 12. Presidential Action:
After a bill has been passed in identical forms through the House and Senate (or reported out of a conference committee), it is sent to the President who may either sign it into law or veto (reject) it. If Congress is in session and the President takes no action, it automatically becomes law. If Congress has already adjourned its second session and the President takes no action, it is called a "pocket veto" and the bill is rejected.

Step 13: Overriding a Veto:
Congress may attempt to override a presidential veto, which requires a two-thirds majority roll call vote.
----------------------------
Q: What does it mean when I ask my legislators to "co-sponsor" a bill. Is this really important?
A: A co-sponsor is a representative or senator who joins the primary sponsor(s) in supporting a piece of legislation. Although it is not necessarily true that a bill needs many co-sponsors to pass, a large amount of co-sponsors indicates the bill has widespread support.
----------------------------

Obama Passed Law to Help Combat Violence Against Women. [109th, HR 3402 (S. 1197), Passed by Unanimous Consent, 12/16/05; PL 109-162, 1/5/06]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s...

Obama Passed A Law To Create The Victims Economic Security And Safety Act. [93rd GA; HB 3486; 3R P 58-0-0, 5/20/03; Signed into law 8/25/03, PA 93-0591; Chicago Tribune, 8/20/03; University Wire, 8/22/03]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?...

Obama Passed Law To Increase Penalties For Repeat Domestic Offenders. [92nd GA; HB 4081; 2002; Signed into law 8/22/02, PA 92-0827]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/stat...

Obama Passed Law To Increase Penalties For Committing Battery In Or Near A Domestic Violence Shelter. [92nd GA, SB 0175, 3/29/01, 3R P; 55-0-0; P.A. 92-0516, 1/1/02; 91st GA, SB 1406, Session Sine Die, 1/9/01]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/stat...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/stat...

Obama Passed Law Improving "No Contact" Court Procedures in Domestic Abuse Petitions. [93rd, HB4395, 3R: 57-0-0, 5/5/04; PA 93-0811, 7/26/04]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?...

Obama Passed Law Requiring Clear Language be Included in Emergency Orders of Protection. [93rd GA, SB2495, 3R: 57-0-0, 3/25/04; Concurrence: 53-0-0, 5/26/04 PA 93-0944, 8/17/04]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?...

Obama Passed Law Raising Standards Related to Domestic Violence. [91st GA, SB0850, 1999, PA 91-0163, 99-07-16]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/stat...

Obama Passed The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Database Act of 2005. [109th, S. 792, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 7/28/05; Referred to House Subcommittee, 9/19/05; Aberdeen American News, 10/6/06]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s...

Obama Passed A Bill To Protect Children From Known Sex Offenders. [109th, S. 1086, Passed by Unanimous Consent, 5/4/06; Held at desk, 5/8/06]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s...

Obama Passed Law Expanding Rights Of Alleged Victims of Sexual Assault. [93rd, HB4771, 2004, Third Reading: 5/19/2004, PA 93-0958 8/20/2004]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?...

Obama Passed A Law To Make Administering A Date Rape Drug Aggravated Battery As Well As An Aggravating Offense To Criminal Sexual Assault. [90th GA, SB 1224, 3R P 54-0-0, 3/24/98; HA 1 Concur P 55-0-1, 5/20/98; PA 90-0735, 8/11/98]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/stat...
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90...

Obama Passed A Law to Expand the Definitions of "Sex Offender" and "Sex Offense" and Mandate Offender Disclosure. [92nd GA, HB 5874, 3R P 55-0-0, 5/7/02; Adopt CC Report P 54-0-1, 5/31/03; PA 92- 0828, 8/22/02]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/stat...

Obama Passed Law to Require EMS For Sexual Assault Survivors To Include Coverage For Emergency Contraception. [92nd GA; SB 0114; 2001; Signed into law 7/25/01, PA 92-0156]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/stat...

Obama Passed a Bill Eliminating Good Behavior Time For Sex Offenders. [91st GA, SB 0485, 3/11/99, 3R P; 54-1-2; P.A. 91-0117, 7/15/99; Senate Floor Transcript, 3/11/99, p. 74]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/stat...
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans91...

Obama Passed Law to Extend Statute Of Limitations On Certain Sexual Offenses. [91st GA; HB 0329; 1999; Signed into law 8/11/99, PA 91-0475]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/stat...

Obama Sponsored Illinois Senate Version Of The Bill That Would Seal Sexual Assault Victim's Records. [91st GA, SB 943, 1999, 3R P 58-0-0, 3/23/99, Total Veto Stands, 11/18/99]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/stat...

SB 943 Was Amended To Include The Exact Bill Language Of HB 854 Before Obama Signed On As A Sponsor. [91st GA, SB 943, 1999, 3R P 58-0-0, 3/23/99, Total Veto Stands, 11/18/99]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/stat...
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/stat...

Obama Passed Equal Pay Act In Illinois To Give 330,000 More Women Protection From Pay Discrimination. [93rd GA; SB 0002; 2003; Signed into law, 5/11/03, PA 93-0006; AP, 5/11/03; Chicago Tribune, 5/8/03; Chicago Tribune, 5/12/03]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?...

Obama Passed A Law To Create The Victims Economic Security And Safety Act. [93rd GA; HB 3486; 3R P 58-0-0, 5/20/03; Signed into law 8/25/03, PA 93-0591; Chicago Tribune, 8/20/03; University Wire, 8/22/03]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?...

Obama Passed Into Law a Requirement that Women And Minority Scientists/Engineers Be Represented And Consulted on Specific Technology and Science Efforts. [S.Amdts. 923, Agreed to by unanimous consent, 4/25/07; S. 761, Incorporated into H.R. 2272, which became P.L. 110-289, 8/9/07]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?s...

Obama Passed Into Law An Amendment Creating A Mentoring Program For Women And Underrepresented Groups At DOE. [S.Amdts. 905, Agreed to by unanimous consent, 4/25/07, S. 761, Incorporated into H.R. 2272, which became P.L. 110-289, 8/9/07]
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?s...

The last 2 are the same bill – Obama actually submitted 3 of the 80 amendments to the bill.

Dru’s Law was never passed by itself – It was included in the “Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act”, which was signed into law by President Bush, 27 July 2007.
http://www.drusvoice.com/law/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h...

Re: Vote for Change: Get Out and Vote!

Joel_101 — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:09:09 -0000

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
http://www.eac.gov/index_html1
http://www.eac.gov/voter/Register%20to%20Vote
http://www.fabnit.com/nvra_update.pdf

McCain Site for voter registration
https://secure.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/Regi...

Obama Site for voter registration
http://www.voteforchange.com/index_obama.php

Note – both McCain and Obama sites can be used regardless of party affiliation – includes Green, Socialist, Independent, etc….

Re: Vote for Change: Get Out and Vote!

Joel_101 — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:48:04 -0000

Holly,

Check the Obama issues link - doesn't seem to work for me

Re: Obama’s Record on Protection Against Sexual Assault

Joel_101 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:43:05 -0000

Actually if you read the floor transcripts for that vote - you will see that obama made a mistake and requested it be changed - He pushed the wrong button

[91st GA, SB 0485, 3/11/99, 3R P; 54-1-2; P.A. 91-0117, 7/15/99; Senate Floor Transcript, 3/11/99, p. 74]
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet91/stat...
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans91...

Re: Do You Agree with the Bush Doctrine? Well, Do You?

Joel_101 — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:29:41 -0000

Here are some more diverse links –right-center-left

http://zfacts.com/p/677.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush...
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2...
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/0001...
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_new_bush_d...
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/12diplom...
http://www.slate.com/id/2200090/
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/BushDoctrin...

What exactly is the Bush doctrine? Those references in Wikipedia existed before Palin was interviewed. Unless of course there is a conspiracy to define that doctrine that has lasted for almost 7 years and has involved left/right media sources and many authors.

I do not consider myself right or left. I don’t make decisions based upon any party or that parties views. Nor do I base my decisions on the spew that comes forth from much of mass media and biased blogs on the internet. I am an equal opportunity questioner of all things and when I see someone being trampled unfairly, I usually say something. That includes defending you and your right to have and voice your opinion.

As for propaganda, what was this original post about?

You seem to have no problem slinging propaganda that you agree with, but when a different view, opinion, or thought provoking statement is made that is contrary to your own, it is wrong because you do not agree with it.

I do not sulk and quite frankly I thought you were bigger, better, and more intelligent than that.

Re: Do You Agree with the Bush Doctrine? Well, Do You?

menstrualpoetry — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:21:37 -0000

Geee thanks for the link. You know, you were so nice to have posted it here because in all of my reading and research I never did think of going to Wikipedia. Seriously, Joel, how did you know? You read my mind, it's great, thank you for that!

In all seriousness now, getting any historical information (and I mean ANY) from Wikipedia is the same as opening a high school history text book--It is text taken from other historical books that have passed standards and will show in future text books. In other words, right-wing LIES LIES LIES. "Let's make America look good; it has to look good and the history books must reflect that so we can brainwash the next generation of sheep." So yeah, thanks, but you can take your propaganda and go sulk in the corner.

Re: Do You Agree with the Bush Doctrine? Well, Do You?

Joel_101 — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:48:09 -0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Re: Obligatory 9/11 Post: The 9/11 Myth

wakemenow — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:21:20 -0000

Joel,

There's so much evidence available out there that it's astounding and makes you wonder what the hell is wrong with the average American that we're not able to see it for what it is.

You're basing your assumptions and beliefs on what you want to believe, which is within your right to do so, but simply because we wish something were true doesn't make it so. Can you find supporters to back your claims? Oh yes, plenty of them, but again, that proves nothing. Because a veteran buddy couldn't find conclusive evidence doesn't and shouldn't imply that said evidence doesn't exist.

You've spent years...well so have some of the us who originally started out as patriotic and supportive of our current administration's claims after 9/11. It's heart-wrenching to see it for what it is and to be faced with no other choice but to scrutinize the actions and intent of your government (both past and present), only to succumb to being labeled as just another "conspiracy theorist" when you attempt to make your findings known to others. It's not pleasurable to weigh the evidence that 9/11 in fact does NOT appear to be the work of a terrorist organization in Afghanistan (and Iraq doesn't even enter into the equation as no ties have been substantiated to date), but instead carried out by officials in Pakistan's ISI, funded by people within our own country: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?geop...

No, I don't like having to admit that to myself as I'm sure few others do, but the truth is worth knowing. Our country was changed for the worse after 9/11, and that is incredibly unfortunate. What's encouraging is that out of this national emergency and the loss of a few thousand of our brothers and sisters, more and more people are beginning to question what's being sold to the public as facts and are looking back at the history of this country, spanning over the last century and a half, in search of answers for why and how we've reached the point we're at now.

Very little in the way of positive change has emerged from the deeply saddening/maddening events of 9/11, but these inquiries are perhaps the most necessary and honestly patriotic endeavor we the people can undertake in an effort to heal our country and ourselves. It's not about causing trouble or making people feel bad for believing the Bush hype or the Clinton hype or the Reagan hype, etc.; it's about caring enough about what this country was founded on and seeking justice for the lives robbed under false pretenses (in the world trade towers just as with our troops in the Middle East).

Additional reading:

9/11: Press For Truth documentary:
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
NYPD's "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat" report:
http://www.nypdshield.org/public/SiteFiles/docu...
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security's "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat" 2008 report (co-authored by Joe Lieberman):
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/IslamistR...

There are also a number of relevant documentaries we're all free to view on:
http://freedocumentaries.org/

I commend you Holly for posting Zeitgeist. It's an excellent, important film. And just wanted to say to Lemur that I appreciated your post up above. Thanks.

AM

Re: Obligatory 9/11 Post: The 9/11 Myth

Joel_101 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:52:27 -0000

Holly,

I can't count the number of these videos and so called evidence I have examined over the past several years. So yes, I watched it. My best friend, a fellow veteran, and I debated this for almost 4 years, digging real deep to find truths. After it was all said and done, we could find no conclusive evidence to support a government conspiracy. I suggest to you that no one has or will find conclusive evidence and if you would please take the time to check the link I posted on this, you may understand why.

So I can not in good conscience attribute any guilt at this time.

Re: Obligatory 9/11 Post: The 9/11 Myth

menstrualpoetry — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:37:20 -0000

I definitely agree with "innocent until proven guilty" but like this post stated and the movie clip stated and the rest of the movie stated if you watched it (and paid attention to it--The clip is right at the end of the post if you are interested in more thought provoking material about this government that you are standing up for and excusing for its abuse of power and treating its own citizens like terrorists) the American government has been proven guilty. Say it with me here: The American government has been proven guilty.

For that reason, it is the responsibility of the people of this country to speak out about the atrocious behavior the American government has and has had for the past several decades. The American government did not just kill thousands of its own people to go into this war, it is the same behavior they used to start Vietnam and WWII. To be fair to our government is to speak out about what they are doing and what they can do to make it better and no, it should not include exceptions and because of that, we should think nothing of putting George Bush and his entire administration behind bars. That is what we would do to "terrorists" and that is what we should do to the administration who killed their own people and is continuing to kill their own soldiers by sending them into a war that is not justified to die in vain. Period.

Re: The Rise of Sarah Palin is Like a Really Bad Disney Movie

Joel_101 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:04:04 -0000

No more upsurd or scary than electing a president with less credentials?

Re: Obligatory 9/11 Post: The 9/11 Myth

Joel_101 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:57:25 -0000

I did say thought provoking. Like you and many others I question our government. I can see dangerous waters if eyes are removed from this legislation. 9/11 was just the impetus for this legislation. After almost 7 years I still do not see any significant evidence that big brother is usurping the powers under that act to do anything except what was intended, to combat terrorism. Are mistakes made? Yes.

I applaud speaking up and questioning issues, even if I do not agree. I do not want to watch our civil liberties abused. Unfortunately I understand the need for certain portions of this legislation. Apparently, so did a majority of our elected officials, not just the President. Both candidates support the act.

This legislation was and is a tough decision. Critics of anything like this would be just as critical if it did not exist and people lost lives because of it. Where do we find the balance of protecting our liberties and protecting lives? I do not know the answer.

Innocent until proven guilty is something many of us like to say when we or others are confronted with legal issues. Unfortunately, many think otherwise when it’s an issue where they are the victim. To be fair to our government as well to its citizens, I believe that all are innocent until proven guilty. If we are going to be for something, it should not include exceptions, or should it?

Some more provoking thought

Re: Obligatory 9/11 Post: The 9/11 Myth

Lemur — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:26:50 -0000

A few things things: the things the government is doing now, with the excuse of 9/11, are the things that, if unchecked (and no one seems to be checking them), will lead to doors being kicked in and people being tortured and 'disappeared'.
Just because you haven't been watched and your phone hasn't been tapped (that you know of) doesn't mean it doesn't happen to many others, and it doesn't mean it won't happen to you in the future if it's decided that you could be a 'threat'.
And one last thing. Those of us who point out the injustice in the U.S when we see it, and express our dissatisfaction with our country and its government, do not do so out of ingratitude, or unawareness of how bad it could be. We do it because we don't want our country to become those other countries where it is that bad. We do it because deep down we believe the USA can be better. We are disappointed in it because we love it. If we didn't think it deserved better, we wouldn't stay and complain, or stay and say nothing. We would leave.
But if no one speaks up, nothing can get better.

Re: The Media’s Ignorance Towards Violence Against Women & Honor Killings

Joel_101 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:53:46 -0000

A perfect example of why we all should be afraid of the worldwide spread of sharia law.

Re: Obligatory 9/11 Post: The 9/11 Myth

Joel_101 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:54:10 -0000

The following is my opinion. It may include links to sites that may provoke thought and challenge others opinions. In no way am I trying to say or imply that I am right or wrong.

I too will give you something to think about.

The first thing I want everyone to think about is what would happen in many other countries if we expressed contrary views, thoughts, and opinions (factual or not)?

Regardless of gender, our doors would be kicked in, we and our families would be beaten, raped, tortured (drilling of body parts, flaying, electrocution, amputations, breaking of bones, and many other things), imprisoned or killed without a trial. Ask yourself why many people who protest the actions in their countries do it from another country. The people in those countries without any kind of rights know the true meaning of fear.

“There is no excuse…..”
---
Maybe, maybe not, but there are explanations.

9/11 – we were attacked by Islamic terrorists.
Iraq/Afghanistan – The U.S. and other countries are fighting a global war on terrorism. Although those two countries seem to maintain or make the news media headlines, they are not the only countries around the world that the U.S. and other nations are waging that global war on terrorism.

People usually die in both. Friends and family of the deceased are affected by their passing. Survivors are usually traumatized. Observers can also be traumatized.

The U.S. as a country, nor its government, is not consumed with war, greed, tragedy, death, oil, lack of money, foreclosures, or lost jobs. Individuals in both can be consumed or not with any of the aforementioned.
---
International terrorism is a fact, not fiction. 9/11 was not the beginning, nor the end, of terrorist attacks against the U.S. or other sovereign nations.
---
Americans should at the very least educate themselves and be aware of the threat. Hurricanes threaten coastal dwellers, but those people do not live in fear or they would move where there is no threat. I could use a sexual predator analogy as well.
---
One persons brainwashing is another’s education or awareness. See hurricane analogy above.
---
The Patriot Act, changes to the Patriot Act and other legislation that empowers the government to act quickly to threats are not sneaky. Our elected officials have to vote and the judiciary has to approve these things. Do I agree with all provisions? No. Do I think some are necessary? Yes. What I fear in the above is lack of judicial oversight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res...
---
I was in the Brussels IAP during the late 70’s when a group of terrorists started throwing grenades. They sure did not look like Americans to me. I could relate dozens of other first hand encounters/stories on this topic, but do not need to.
---
I check out my windows several times a day/night (seriously) – no one is spying on me. My phones can’t be tapped in the conventional sense without me knowing about it – and still no one has done it. Phone conversations have been monitored by keyword methods for a long time, particularly international calls. I would hazard that every country with the technology does the same thing. Email and internet traffic is also monitored.

Probable cause allows law enforcement to do things, it always has. Terrorism is an immediate threat and judicial delays can cost lives etc… Are mistakes made? Yes. Mistakes are made by law enforcement over probable cause in non-terror related things daily. If a friend of mine was being attacked or raped I would not hesitate to stop it – even if that meant kicking down a door. If I was in law enforcement and I had tactical (immediate) information that someone had kidnapped a child and was in house X on street Y, I would not hesitate to kick down that door either.

Terrorist watch lists have existed for a long time. Only now they are bigger and electronic, which can create mistakes. I hear this argument occasionally, but I wonder why the U.S. still has most wanted lists by the FBI and DOJ and no one complains. I also do not hear many complaints about law enforcement having data bases of criminals. I suppose the sexual predator list is also unfair. Nothing is perfect, and we can not have our cake and eat it too under any of these circumstances.

I am sorry for anyone that feels ashamed of the U.S. and my usual reply is to tell the person to go live in Somalia for two years. Or some other messed up country. It’s hard to appreciate something you take for granted, even if it’s not perfect.

I am sorry for anyone that feels ashamed of President Bush. Having spent my military career from Carter to Clinton, I was never ashamed of my Presidents, even when I did not agree with them. All of them did (remember – my opinion) good and bad things. After all, not only were they human, they had to make tough decisions that did not always turn out the way they intended. I still carry a bit of a grudge against Clinton for what happened in Somalia, but I also recognize some of the good things he did.

If anyone thinks that McCain or Obama are going to do anything to radically change the global war on terror, I would challenge you to dig deeper and to think. History is weird and like 9/11, people tend to forget things like Waco, Ruby Ridge, Desert One, and other fiascos/failures, as well as successes. Presidents have always been faced with problems and tough decisions regardless of their political party.

A site that challenges 9/11 myth/fact.
http://www.911myths.com/index.html

Terrorism attacks – Just some – too many to list here
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp2...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/608775/posts
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp2...

I am always reminded of a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

I always wonder if he were alive today, would he still say the same thing. I suppose if we Americans still had the same values (Religion and pro-life) and we were all armed and willing to defend ourselves and this country………………

Just some thought provoking words

Re: John McCain Doesn’t Support the Troops

Joel_101 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:34:57 -0000

I am a veteran and I am not upset at McCain’s vote on this particular bill.

1. The bill did not support troops after the Vietnam era bill expired thru the present. It only addressed the post 9/11 troops.
2. McCain did not think the bill went far enough, nor did it address issues of retention or transferability to other family members.
3. McCain does support veterans. Just do the digging on his voting record.
4. No – the current GI Bill is not the same one that started post WWII. There have been a several different changes since that in particular addressed education benefits. Facts not opinion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gi_bill

Re: Target Women: The Sarah Palin Edition

Alyssa — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:32:12 -0000

Um, they were COMPETING. And guess what? She didn't win. She just didn't. It was close, but in the end, she DID NOT WIN. Bummer. Can we get on with our lives now?

Re: Sarah Palin is Not a Feminist

Joel_101 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 04:34:47 -0000

I do not necessarily agree.

My parents divorced when I was 11, just before my father passed away.
My only sibling was a female special needs child.
My mother had to work.
We had no immediate family in California.

My mother made it work with supportive friends and using me to care for my sister after school.

Now:

I am a single father of 4 children, 2 of which are minors.
Their mother passed away 10 years ago this December.
I am disabled and recently (a year ago) unemployed.
I have no living immediate family beyond my children.
My oldest daughter lives close by.
I do not draw from social security or welfare.

We make it work.

Women are not the only ones in a family that are responsible for raising the children. Not to mention there are other options such as nannies, etc…

Re: Gloria Steinem on Sarah Palin

Joel_101 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:56:59 -0000

It’s not about whether I am right or wrong – it’s about facts and provoking people to think. I am not opposed to others views, I actually cherish and respect them. The points “she brought up are true” are questionable. Expressing my opinions on a subject, just as you do, is not an inference of who is right or wrong. I don’t play games, nor do I consider myself right about everything. Given my age, I have been wrong about many things and 10 years from now I will have found that there is even more I have been wrong about.

“This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need.”

“Unqualified woman”

Governors that became president:

Andrew Jackson
William Harrison
William Taft
Thomas Jefferson
James Monroe
John Tyler
Martin Van Buren
Andrew Johnson
Rutherford Hayes
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Calvin Coolidge
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Ronald Reagan
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush

I won’t bother to list Vice Presidents – because the issue appears to be related to whether Palin is qualified to assume the duties of president.

“Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling.

“She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality”
I can not find any supporting evidence of this claim.

“She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools”
“Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

“disbelieves global warming”
Not at all – she, like others, question the human contribution or not to global warming. Given that there are significant numbers of scientists and climatologists that support both notions, it’s hard to hold this against anyone. It’s not a question of whether global warming exists; it’s a question of why and how that is in disagreement worldwide.

“she opposes gun control”
So?

“supports government control of women's wombs’
Is pro-life, yet has never enacted any legislation to force her belief on others.

“she opposes stem cell research”
She opposes the expansion of only one small segment of stem cell research - embryonic stem cell research.

“approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions”
"Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support” – she supports comprehensive sex education which includes abstinence.

“she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air”
Wolves are a predator species, and if their population is allowed to expand too fast, they will wipe out Alaska's population of moose and caribou. The state needs to keep close track of the wolf population, which is why they are offering a bounty for each head.

“didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation”
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Edu...

“she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act”
He has reasons to oppose the act and he is not alone.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s...
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/04/magazines/fortu...

“supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska”
Yes

“she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve”
As do many Alaskans